AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami has expressed his inability to come to the Madras High Court premises to provide evidence in a 2019 defamation suit filed by him against journalist Mathew Samuel and others, for having linked his name with the 2017 Kodanad heist-cum-murder case.
Stating that he was now the Leader of the Opposition and therefore, the litigants may have to face hardships because of security protocols to be followed during his presence before the Master’s court inside the High Court premises, he urged the court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence at his official residence in Chennai.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar directed the High Court Registry to list the application, filed for appointment of advocate commissioner, for hearing on Friday since advocate S. Manuraj, representing the defendants in the civil suit, sought time to respond to the application filed by the plaintiff though his counsel S.R. Rajagopal.
In a short affidavit filed in support of the application, Mr. Palaniswami said he had had filed the suit in 2019, seeking damages of ₹1.10 crore from the New Delhi-based journalist, his crew members as well as the Kodanad case accused V. Sayan and C. Valayar Manoj, for having released a video accusing him of being involved in the crime.
After the filing of written statements by all the defendants in the suit, the matter was referred to the Additional Master Court-I for recording of evidence. However, citing several reasons, including security issues, for his inability to appear in person, the plaintiff said, the Master had returned the case bundle to the High Court on July 21 this year.
“I submit that my non appearance before the learned Additional Master -I was due to the bona fide reasons stated above and is neither wilful nor wanton. Upon advice to avoid any difficulties that would be caused to the court staff and litigants during my appearance, I humbly seek the benevolence of this honourable court to appoint an advocate commissioner,” the affidavit read.
Making it clear that he was determined to take the civil suit to its logical conclusion since it was a matter of grave concern to him, the plaintiff said he was ready to follow all statutory procedures to be followed by a witness as contemplated under the rule of law and cooperate with the court as well as the advocate commissioner.
“I submit that irreparable loss and prejudice would be caused to me if this honourable court is not inclined to allow the present application seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner for examination of my evidence... My evidence is vital for deciding the above case,” Mr. Palaniswami added.
