Delhi High Court [Tribunal Superior de Delhi], CS(OS) 704/2024, Lokanath Swami v. Saraswati Sara Richardson Jones & Ors.: órdenes del 15 de septiembre de 2025 (solicitud de medida cautelar resuelta sin dictar orden provisional) y del 17 de septiembre de 2026 (documentos adicionales de los demandados sobre el informe del panel del GBC incorporados al expediente), texto tal como lo publicó Indian Kanoon

Text of the Delhi High Court order as published by Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120077135/


[Cites 0, Cited by o]


Delhi High Court - Orders


H.H. Lokanath Swami vs Ms. Saraswati Sara Richardson
Jones & ... on 15 September, 2025

Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

                                     $~O-32
                                     *              IN    THE   HIGH   COURT    OF   DELHI    AT    NEW    DELHI
                                     +              CS (0S)     704/2024
                                                    H.H.    LOKANATH     SWAMI

sees Plaintiff
                                                                                                    Through:
Mr.   Rakesh    Taneja,     Mr.   Shivang   and


Mr.   Ashutosh,     Advs.


                                                                                                    versus




                                                    MS.    SARASWATI     SARA    RICHARDSON         JONES
                                                    &    ORS.
rr Defendants
                                                                        Through:     Mr.     Vivek    Sood,       Sr.    Adv with
Mr
                                                                                     Ajay     Garg,       Mr.    Uday    Garg,
Ms.

                                                                                     Anusha        Garg,    Ms.    Pankhuri
Jain,    Ms,
                                                                                     Medhavi        Judevi       and Mr.
Amitanshu
                                                                                      Satyarthi,          Advs    for    D-1.
                                                                                     Mr.     Ajay Garg,          Mr.    Uday
Garg,    Ms.
                                                                                     Anusha        Garg,    Ms.    Vanshika
Gupta,
                                                                                     Ms.     Bhavya       Gabi    and Mr.
Soumil
                                                                                      Singh    Rawat,       Advs       for   D-2.
                                                                                     Ms.     Amee    Rana,       Mr.    Akhil
Sandilya
                                                                                      and    Mr.    Tanuj       Sharma,      Advs
for   D-3.


                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE      MR.    JUSTICE   PURUSHAINDRA        KUMAR       KAURAV
                                                                                                    ORDER



% 15.09.2025 LA. 38213/2024 (BY PLAINTIFF FOR INJUNCTION)

1. Having briefly heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the defendants, by way of
their written statements, have justified the comments made in the public domain.

2. Mr. Rakesh Taneja, who appears for the plaintiff, however, contends that the entire enquiry report
and other material will have to be looked into This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the
QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2025 at 22:13:09 in
their right perspective. According to him, the imputations made against the plaintiff are wholly
baseless and unjustified.

3. At this stage, looking at the nature of the material already available in the public domain, the Court
finds that after 10.08.2024, no further publications have been made by the defendants on social
media, reiterating the same allegation.

4. Under these circumstances, instead of passing any interim order, at this stage, or dealing with the
instant application on merit, the Court disposes of this application granting liberty to the plaintiff to
approach the Court in event any further precipitative steps are taken by the defendants qua the social
media posts, which have already been posted, and are subject matter of the instant civil suit.

5. The application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 704/2024 and L.A. 47938/2024, I.A. 7452/2025

6. List this matter on 15.10.2025 for taking up further necessary steps in accordance with the extant
rules.

7. Thereafter, list before the Court on the date to be assigned by the Joint Registrar.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 aks/sp This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the
QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2025 at 22:13:09

Text of the Delhi High Court order as published by Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17612106/


[Cites 4, Cited by o]


Delhi High Court


H.H. Lokanath Swami vs Ms. Saraswati Sara Richardson
Jones & ...0n 17 September, 2026

Author: Sachin Datta

Bench: Sachin Datta

                                     $
                                     *       IN    THE   HIGH    COURT    OF    DELHI    AT    NEW    DELHI
                                     %                                          Date    of    Decision:       17.09.2026


                                              CNR No.DLHCQ10572222024
                                     +        CS (OS)      704/2024
                                              H.H.       LOKANATH   SWAMI
wees Plaintiff
                                                                    Through:                           Mr.    Rakesh    Taneja,
Advocate.
                                                                                 versus

                                              MS.    SARASWATI      SARA       RICHARDSON       JONES    &    ORS.


seen Defendants
                                                                    Through:       Mr.       Ajay    Garg,    Mr.    Uday   Garg,
Ms.
                                                                                   Anusha       Garg,    Ms.    Nishtha      Kumar
and
                                                                                   Ms.       Ananya    Pandey,       Advocates
for   D-
                                                                                   1    and    D-2,
                                              CORAM:
                                              HON'BLE      MR.    JUSTICE       SACHIN       DATTA


                                     SACHIN       DATTA,    J.   (ORAL)



LA. 12129/2026 (ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS/DEFENDANT NO.1 & 2 UNDER ORDER VIII
RULE 1A (3) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)

1. By way of this application, the defendant nos.1 and 2 seek leave of this Court under Order VIII Rule
1-A(3) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, to place on record the additional
documents filed vide Diary No.1857426/2025 on 17.03.2025.

2. The present suit is for injunction and recovery of damages for alleged defamation founded on
certain posts stated to have been made by the defendant nos.1 and 2, on a social media platform,
concerning the plaintiff.

3. The defendant nos.1 and 2, in their written statement, have pleaded that the posts are true and
constitute a fair comment made in public interest. In support of that plea, they have relied upon, and
filed along with their written statement, a report of a Case Panel constituted by the Governing Body
Commission (hereinafter referred to as "GBC") of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness
(hereinafter referred to as "ISKCON") concerning the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Panel
Report").

4. The written statement of the defendant nos.1 and 2, dated 28.09.2024, along with the
accompanying documents and affidavit of admission/denial was placed on record as noted in the
order dated 11.11.2024 of the Joint Registrar (Judicial).

5. The plaintiff in the affidavit of the admission/denial of the documents of the defendant nos.1 and 2,
placed on record vide Diary No.5144879/2024 on 11.11.2024, denied the Panel Report. In the
replication to the written statement of the defendant nos.1 and 2 filed on 23.11.2024, which was taken
on record on 31.10.2025 in terms of the order dated 15.10.2025 of the Joint Registrar (Judicial), the
plaintiff asserted that the Panel Report is not the official report of ISKCON and that the website on
which it appears does not appear to be an official website of ISKCON.

6. It is in this backdrop that the defendant nos.1 and 2 filed the additional documents. The
documents, as described in paragraph 7 of the application, comprise of the following:-

7. Vide order dated 14.01.2026, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) directed the plaintiff to file a
Joint Document Schedule after obtaining the comments and signatures of the counsel for the
defendant nos. 1 and 2.

8. It is at that stage that the learned counsel for the plaintiff refused to include the additional
documents in the Joint Document Schedule on the ground that the leave of the Court under Order
VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC had not been taken.

9. The present application thereupon has been filed on 22.04.2026. Notice was issued vide order
dated 30.04.2026. The plaintiff has filed a reply and the rejoinder has also been filed by the defendant
nos.1 and 2.

10. Learned counsel for the defendant nos.1 and 2 submits that the foundation of the defence is the
Panel Report which was duly filed along with the written statement. It is submitted that the additional
documents are corroborative material that speaks to the provenance and official character of that
report.


11. Itis submitted that the need to place and file the above arose only when the plaintiff, in its
replication and affidavit of admission/denial, denied that the report was an official document of
ISKCON.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposes the present application. He submits
that the application is belated and an afterthought, having been filed only after the plaintiff pointed
out the absence of leave during the preparation of the Joint Document Schedule.

13. He submits that the documents pre-date the institution of the suit and filing of the written
statement and were therefore, within the knowledge, power, and possession of the said defendant
nos. 1 and 2 at the time when the written statement was filed.

14. It is submitted that it is implicit from the written statement itself that the documents were well
within the knowledge of the defendant nos. 1 and 2, yet the said defendants chose not to file the same
at the relevant point in time. He submits that permitting the defendant nos.1 and 2 to file the
additional documents at this stage would expand the scope of the controversy and delay the suit.

REASONING

15. Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC requires a defendant who has founded its defence upon a document,
or relies upon any document in their possession or power in support of their defence, to enter it in a
list and produce it in Court when the written statement is presented. Sub-Rule (3) provides that a
document which ought to have been so produced, but was not, "shall not without the leave of the
Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit".

16. The provision, thus, does not shut out the document; it conditions its filing upon the leave of the
Court. The principles governing grant of such leave have been expounded upon by the Supreme Court
in Sugandhi and Another v. P. Raj Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, wherein it has been held as under:-

      "8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to
      produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the
      written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to
      grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula,
      this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.

      g. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical
      hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial
      justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary
      party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon
      procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing
      but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to
      take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the
      court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the
      documents under sub-rule (3)."

17. In Levaku Pedda Redamma & Ors. v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr., SLP (C)
No.7452/2022 [order dated 17.05.2022], the Supreme Court, setting aside the orders which had
refused the defendant's leave to produce documents, observed that the Trial Court and the High Court
have "gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of
which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party
to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice" and that
"even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the
production of the documents itself".

18. At the same time, as pointed out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh Arneja v. Atul
Gupta, CM (M) 965/2022, CM APPL.40534/2022 and CM APPL.40535/2022 [decided on
14.09.2022], the leniency mandated by Sugandhi (supra) pre-supposes that good cause is shown. The
application must contain an explanation, howsoever brief, as to why the documents were not filed
earlier and why they are relevant for adjudication of the controversy.

19. Tested on the above principles, the present application must succeed.

20. The explanation offered by the defendant nos.1 and 2 cannot be said to be vague. The documents
on which the defence is founded, is mainly the Panel Report, was filed along with written statement.
The additional documents do not change the foundation of the defence; rather, they are material
directed toward establishing that the Panel Report emanated from, and was acted upon by, the
Governing Body of ISKCON, and that the website on which the same, as also the corrected material,
was published is operated by ISKCON.

21. The need to place such material on record arose when the plaintiff, in its replication and in its
affidavit of admission/denial, denied the official character of the report as well as the website, and put
the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to strict proof thereof.

22. The submission that the documents pre-date the suit is not determinative of the matter. The
relevant aspect is whether good cause has been shown for their not having been filed earlier. The
circumstances in which the defendant nos.1 and 2 have been impelled to file these additional
documents have been set out in the application, and this Court is satisfied that the necessity for the
same arises from the pleadings of the parties.

23. The plaintiff's plea of prejudice is unsubstantiated. Issues are yet to be framed, and the
admission/denial of the defendant nos.1 and 2's documents, as well as the marking of exhibits, is yet
to take place before the Joint Registrar.

24. As such, the plaintiff will necessarily have full opportunity to file his affidavit of admission/denial
in respect of the additional documents, to file documents in rebuttal, and to test the documents in
cross-examination.

25. In the circumstances, the application is allowed.

26. The additional documents are taken on record.

27. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the
genuineness, authenticity and admissibility, mode of proof or evidentiary value of the documents
sought to be placed on record.

28. All rights and contentions of the plaintiff in this regard are expressly reserved.

29. The application is disposed of in the above terms. CS(OS) 704/2024

30. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 08.01.2027.

SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/r,sd