5G Rollout: Delhi High Court To Hear DSLSA's Plea Seeking Recovery Of 20 Lakh Cost Imposed On Juhi Chawla On February 3

The Delhi High Court will hear on February 3, a plea filed by Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) seeking recovery of Rs. 20 lakh cost imposed on Bollywood actress and environmentalist Juhi Chawla and others dismissing their civil suit against 5G Roll out as being defective and not maintainable.

Hearing in the execution petition, which was listed before Justice Amit Bansal today, was deferred after the counsel appearing on behalf of Chawla apprised the Court that an appeal against dismissal of the said suit is pending before a division bench and the same is to come for hearing next on January 25.

5G Rollout: Juhi Chawla's Plea Seeking Amendment In High Court's Order Withdrawn From Court

On the other hand, counsel appearing for DSLSA apprised the Court that while the order imposing costs was passed in June last year, the appeal challenging the same was filed only after a notice was sent by DSLSA for recovery of the cost.

The hearing was accordingly adjourned to February 3.

About the Single Judge Order

The Court had held that the Plaintiffs' suit was valued at at Rs. 2 crore for jurisdiction, therefore, the valuation had to be the same for Court fee. Over Rs 1 lakh should have been paid. Challenge to the Court Fee Act is not permitted under CPC.

The Court had further held that notice under S.80 CPC is a mandatory provision and the Plaintiffs' contention that it is an empty formality is rejected.

The Court had also said that the Plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for leave to institute the suit or to sue in representative capacity. Therefore, the plaint was held to be defective and not maintainable.

"They (plaintiffs) have abused and misused process of law. Plaintiffs are directed to deposit cost of 20 lakhs within one week. DSLSA to utilise it for cause of victims of road accidents. If any proceedings are instituted, this judgement be produced before the court. It appears plaintiffs have filed this suit for publicity, which is clear by the plaintiff 1 sharing links of the hearing on her social media, which lead to multiple disruptions in the hearing", the Court had noted in the order.