Sunjay Kapur property row: Delhi HC issues summons in Rs 20 crore defamation suit filed by Priya Sachdeva Kapur; parties asked to maintain media restraint

NEW DELHI: In a significant development in the ongoing family dispute, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued summons in a Rs 20 crore defamation suit filed by Priya Sachdeva Kapur against her sister-in-law, Mandhira Kapur Smith, and another individual.

The Court also directed both parties to exercise restraint and refrain from making any statements against each other in the media, either directly or indirectly, according to news agency ANI.




The matter was heard by Justice Mini Pushkarna, who noted that the dispute involved members of the same family and expressed hope that the parties may eventually consider resolving their differences through mediation.

While passing directions, the Court observed discrepancies in the affidavits accompanying the plaint, noting that some appeared to predate the pleadings and submissions referred to in the suit. Accordingly, the Court directed that fresh affidavits be filed within one week and asked the plaintiff to place on record a complete copy of the suit.

The case has been listed for April 14 before the Registrar and May 14 before the Court for further proceedings.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, along with Advocate Anuj Tiwari, appeared for Mandhira Kapur Smith. Sibal submitted that the nature of the dispute was evident from the plaint itself, arguing that in a defamation case, the cause of action should be clearly identifiable at the outset. He noted that one has to go through nearly 37 pages before reaching the alleged defamatory content and described several portions of the plaint as containing allegations against the defendant that were "completely fictitious."

Anuj Tiwari further pointed out inconsistencies in the plaintiff's filings, stating that while the verification affidavit was dated January 20, reliance was placed on facts and an order dated January 21, and even documents from February were annexed. He also raised objections regarding alleged suppression, contending that the plaintiff had stated no other suit had been filed on the same cause of action, despite a previous suit having been instituted earlier and kept under defects.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Rani Kapur, countered the submissions, maintaining that serious defamatory statements had been made against Priya Kapur. He said that certain remarks not only targeted her reputation but also referred to her minor child, causing grave reputational and emotional harm. Counsel alleged that statements questioning her "bloodline" and calling her a "thief" had been made on public platforms.

Counsel for the plaintiff also informed the Court that a dispossession suit had earlier been filed in connection with the broader family dispute and that a complaint had been made to the registry regarding the alleged leakage of documents. At one stage, it was noted that the present defamation suit had been filed on February 1.

Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, who appeared for Rani Kapur, also highlighted that in earlier proceedings concerning related family issues, the Court had suggested mediation, after which the present litigation followed.

Taking note of the rival submissions, the Court issued summons to the defendants and directed them to file written statements within 30 days. Notice was also issued on the plaintiff's application seeking an interim injunction, granting four weeks for replies and one week thereafter for rejoinder.

As an interim measure, the Court directed both parties to maintain restraint and avoid making statements against each other in the media while the matter remains pending.

The dispute arises from a civil defamation suit filed by Priya Sachdeva Kapur seeking ₹20 crore in damages, alleging that statements made in interviews, podcasts, and on social media by the defendants have harmed her reputation and caused mental distress. The matter will next be taken up on April 14 before the Registrar and on May 14 before the Court.