A Delhi court imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on BJP leader Suresh Nakhua after his lawyer sought another adjournment in his defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee. The order aims to prevent repeated delays during the proceedings from happening.
A Delhi court imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Nakhua after his lawyer requested another adjournment in his defamation lawsuit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.
The order was issued by District Judge Pritam Singh.
The court stated,
“I am issuing notice to the notary (who attested Nakhua’s earlier affidavit in which certain defects were noticed). Last and final opportunity given to plaintiff, (adjournment granted) subject to cost of Rs.5,000. Court will hear arguments on Order 7 Rule 11,”
Nakhua, who serves as the spokesperson for the BJP’s Mumbai unit, filed the defamation suit against Rathee last year concerning a YouTube video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee,” released on July 7, 2024.
Nakhua took issue with Rathee’s characterization of him as associated with “violent and abusive trolls,” asserting that such accusations were made without justification and harmed his reputation.
In his lawsuit, Nakhua claimed that the allegations led to extensive condemnation and ridicule against him.
During a hearing in September 2024, the court identified a flaw in an affidavit submitted by Nakhua and required him to file a revised affidavit. An amended affidavit was submitted, but Rathee’s team highlighted errors in this version as well, prompting the court to summon the notary who certified Nakhua’s affidavit.
However, the notary has yet to appear, citing a bone fracture.
In today’s session, a new attorney, Advocate Jagdish Trivedi, represented Nakhua and requested an adjournment so that his vakalatnama could be added to the records.
Senior Advocate Satvik Verma and Advocate Nakul Gandhi represented Rathee, opposing the adjournment and questioning Nakhua’s actions throughout the case.
Verma argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit based on Nakhua’s conduct,
“Nobody has appeared for plaintiff for the last many hearings. The last counsel has withdrawn his vakalatnama. Please see the sequence of events. They filed a plaint. The affidavit with the plaint was faulty. Their second affidavit was faulty as well. The suit is based on a video, which was not accompanied by an application under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. On the sixth occasion, he again filed a faulty affidavit, which allegedly notarised before being signed by plaintiff. Court previously took exception to the conduct. Subsequently the notary was summoned… The original vakalatnama was filed by one Mukesh Sharma which was withdrawn on November 3. Now, one more month has passed. The orders speak for themselves. Judicial orders are binding on successive bench. On the basis of the conduct, it is not as if they don’t know, I am requesting that this matter is dismissed.”
The case is set to be heard again on March 11, 2026, with Advocates Mujeeb, Siddhi Sahoo, and Shantanu Parmar also representing Dhruv Rathee.