New Delhi [India], March 12 (ANI): The Patiala House Court has issued notice on an application moved by Mandhira Kapur Smith seeking the production of certain documents from Priya Sachdev Kapur in connection with an ongoing defamation complaint.

Mandhira Kapur, the sister of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, appeared before the court and filed her reply to the defamation complaint lodged by Priya Sachdev Kapur. Along with her reply, she also moved an application seeking directions for the production of certain documents from the complainant.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Siddhant Sihag heard the preliminary arguments on the application. The court listed the matter for further hearing and arguments on March 30.

The court also granted time to counsel for the proposed accused, Pooja Chaudhary, to file a reply.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Priya Kapur, submitted before the court that the application moved by Mandhira Kapur was not maintainable at the present stage of the proceedings. He stated that he does not wish to file a formal reply but reserves his right to argue on points of law.

Mandhira Kapur appeared before the court pursuant to the notice issued to her on the previous date. She filed her reply to the defamation complaint filed by Priya Sachdev Kapur.

Advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for Mandhira Kapur, filed the reply along with an application stating that the alleged defamatory words should not be viewed in isolation.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Priya Kapur, opposed the application.

Mandhira Kapur has sought the production of certain documents. Counsel referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in support of the application.

Opposing the plea seeking directions for the production of documents, Singh argued that the matter is currently at the stage of notice and not at the stage of charge. Therefore, the application for the production of documents cannot be filed at this stage.

The Senior Advocate also submitted that there is no denial of the statement by the proposed accused, Mandhira Kapur. It has not been claimed that the content is morphed or manipulated.

Advocate Amit Prasad, counsel for Mandhira Kapur, submitted that the judgment cited by counsel for the complainant is not relevant in the present case, as this is a complaint case. He argued that the judgment relied upon by the complainant applies to cases filed by the State in criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, the Senior Advocate argued that such an application becomes relevant only after the court takes cognisance and at the appropriate stage of proceedings. Since there is no denial of the statement by Mandhira Kapur, counsel for the complainant, argued that the defendant may seek the documents at the stage of charge.

He further submitted that this is not a civil case; rather, the accused are defendants in a criminal defamation case for allegedly tarnishing the complainant's image in the eyes of the public. Therefore, a plea seeking production of documents is not applicable at this stage.

The Senior Advocate also argued that all the documents sought by Mandhira Kapur relate to property, trusts, and other matters that are not connected with the present complaint and are already in the public domain. He stated that she is already aware of these matters.

On January 21, the Patiala House Court issued notice to the proposed accused Mandhira Kapur and Pooja Chaudhary.

The statements of Priya Sachdev Kapur and her sister Charu Sachdev were recorded by the court in the defamation complaint filed by Priya Kapur against Mandhira Kapur and another.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, along with Advocates Smriti Asmita and Jhanvi Narang, appeared for Priya Sachdev Kapur.

Priya Sachdev Kapur has filed a criminal defamation complaint against Sunjay Kapur's sister, Mandhira Kapur Smith, and another individual, alleging that a series of statements made against her across podcasts, social media platforms, media interviews, and republished online content constitute a sustained and deliberate campaign to damage her reputation.

The complaint asserts that the impugned remarks contain false assertions, insinuations, and personal attacks presented as established facts, despite the issues being sub judice, thereby causing serious reputational harm.

According to the complaint, the material circulated in the public domain advances misleading narratives and allegations aimed at maligning and harassing Priya Kapur through public discourse instead of lawful remedies.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh submitted that such conduct squarely attracts the offence of criminal defamation under the applicable law.

The filing of the defamation case follows recent developments in connected proceedings, in which the court sought a response from actor Karisma Kapoor on a plea moved by Priya Kapur seeking certified copies of divorce-related court records involving late industrialist Sunjay Kapur.

Against this backdrop, Mandhira Kapur Smith made public remarks to the media questioning Priya Kapur's conduct and motives.

She stated that if her brother had intended to share certain information, he would have done so during the marriage, and further remarked that divorce proceedings are confidential, particularly where children are involved.

Priya Kapur has alleged that these statements form part of the defamatory material complained of and has approached the court through Senior Advocate Maninder Singh seeking criminal action for the alleged damage to her reputation. (ANI)