File Photo
Justice Manmohan held that the averments in the replication, or Jaitley's reply to Kejriwal's written submission, "crystalise" the Union Minister's stand on an important issue and are relevant to the case.
The court also observed that the submission of the Union Minister in his replication "is not inconsistent, is not frivolous and also not abuse of the process of law".
The court, however, granted four weeks' time to Kejriwal to file his response to the new facts introduced by Jaitley in his replication.
The court's order came on the Delhi Chief Minister's plea seeking to strike out the entire reply of Jaitley filed in response to Kejriwal's written submission.
Kejriwal claimed that Jaitley's replication contained additional allegations which did not form part of the plaint, and hence, the chief minister did not have a chance to rebut them through his written statement.
The court also observed that the submission of the Union Minister in his replication "is not inconsistent, is not frivolous and also not abuse of the process of law".
The court, however, granted four weeks' time to Kejriwal to file his response to the new facts introduced by Jaitley in his replication.
The court's order came on the Delhi Chief Minister's plea seeking to strike out the entire reply of Jaitley filed in response to Kejriwal's written submission.
Kejriwal claimed that Jaitley's replication contained additional allegations which did not form part of the plaint, and hence, the chief minister did not have a chance to rebut them through his written statement.
