Thane: A Thane district court has rejected an application filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking transfer of the defamation suit filed against him by RSS activists Vivek Champanerkar in another court. Principal District Judge A J Mantri rejected Gandhi's plea in December last year.
The court has seized an application filed by Rahul Gandhi under section 24 of the code of civil procedure (CPC) seeking to transfer the defamation suit filed against him and Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury by Vivek Champanerkar for allegedly blaming RSS for the murder of noted journalist Gauri Lankesh.
The suit filed by Champanerkar is pending before a Civil Judge, Senior Division. However, Gandhi sought the same to be transferred to Civil Judge, Junior Division on the ground that the compensation sought by the plaintiff was below Rs 5 lakh.
Judge Mantri noted in his order that Rahul Gandhi has filed the present application on the ground of valuation.
Mantri said, "If applicant Rahul Gandhi is having any grievance or objection about the maintainability of the suit before the senior division judge on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, then they may raise the said objection before the same and competent court, which may decide the same on its merits."
Earlier after Gauri Lankesh murder on September 6, 2017 Rahul Gandhi had tweeted that, "Anybody who speaks against RSS/BJP is attacked and even killed. They want to impose only one ideology which is against the nature of India."
The defamation suit was filed in 2019 by Champanerkar who claimed that both Gandhi and Yechury have always blamed RSS for any act of violence and urged that such blaming should stop. In this regard the suit highlighted their comments wherein both said that anyone opposing RSS ideology will be silenced.
Champanerkar sought a tocken compensation of Rs 1.
Mantri said, "Section 24 of the CPC does not prescribe for determining the question of pecuniary jurisdiction in the court. Therefore, it could not be proper to exercise the powers under the said section to determine the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court on the application of the defendant in the suit. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention of the applicant to transfer the matter from senior judge to junior judge on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction."
The matter would now proceed before Civil Judge, Senior Division.
