Juhi Chawla withdraws plea seeking that her lawsuit against 5G roll out be declared "rejected" instead of "dismissed"
Actor Juhi Chawla today withdrew her application seeking that the earlier order of the Court which had ‘ dismissed her plea against 5G Rollout be declared ‘rejected’ instead of “dimissed”.
The single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath allowed withdrawal of the application after Advocate Deepak Khosla appearing for Chawla informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the plea.
Khosla had argued that the plaint, which “never went up to the level of suit”, could only be rejected or returned in terms of the Civil Procedure Code, and not dismissed.
Justice Sanjeev Narula on July 12 recused from hearing the plea filed by Chawla seeking seeking waiver of Rs 20 Lakhs cost imposed on her by the Court in the plea seeking 5G rollout in India.
Earlier on his last working day, Justice (Retd) JR Midha had expressed 'shock' at the conduct of Actor Juhi Chawla and others for filing an application seeking waiver of the Rs 20 lakhs cost imposed on her in relation to the plea seeking rollout of the 5G in India.
Justice Midha was further dismayed when Advocate Deepak Khosla appearing for petitioners clarified that they were seeking a refund of the Court fees
Last month, Justice (Retd) JR Midha had rejected a plea by Actor Juhi Chawla, against implementation of 5G, raising Environmental concerns.
The Court came down heavily upon the petitioners, imposing costs of 20 lakh.
Justice JR Midha, holding the plaint “stuffed with vexatious averments”, said,
“Application is misconceived and frivolous. Petitioners have done utter disfavour with regards to the law of court fees.
Petitioners are granted 1 week time to pay the defective court fees.
The suit framed by the plaintiff is defective for the following reasons: Plaintiff not complied with order 6 of CPC; Order 6 Rule 9 of CPC provides that content of the document shall not be re-produced.
Plaint is stuffed with vexatious averments.
Plaintiff have joined 33 parties. Plaintiffs have not verified the complaint which is mandatory.
The plaintiffs have no personal knowledge of any of the averments of the plaint. Since they are not aware of the averments & have only raised it based on the knowledge, they expected the court to look into the same.
Requirements under section 39 of Specific relief Act are not fulfilled. Plaint is devoid of deficient court fees & have not given notice to the government u/s 80 CPC.
Registry objected but the plaintiffs still insisted. Plaintiffs are required to deposit the deficient court fees. Cost of Rs 20 lakh imposed to waste time of court. Cost to be deposited within one week with the DLSA.
Plaintiffs have filed the suit for publicity. Plaintiff had shared the links on social media platforms due to which the court had to face disruptions.
Delhi Police is required to look into the miscreants who disturbed the Court. Show cause notice issued to them & they'll have to appear in Court to show cause as to why contempt should not be issued against them.”
Case Title: Juhi Chawla & ors vs Science and Engineering Research Board & ors