H.H. Lokanath Swami vs Ms. Saraswati Sara Richardson Jones & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%

Date of Decision: 17.09.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010572222024
CS(OS) 704/2024
+
H.H. LOKANATH SWAMI .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Advocate.
versus
MS. SARASWATI SARA RICHARDSON JONES & ORS.
.....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)
I.A. 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
CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 1 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

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:-


CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 2 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 3 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 4 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

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. It is 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.
CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 5 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

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.
9. 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
CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 6 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

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
CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 7 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

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.
CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 8 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14

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
CS(OS) 704/2024 Page 9 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:21.09.2026
17:43:14