Telangana High Court
Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Mukunddas Soni on 2 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
C.M.A.No.451 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2023 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.522 of 2022 in O.S.No.185 of 2022.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.522 of 2022 against the defendant seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendant or any other person claiming under him or his servants from making and publishing defamatory and libelous allegations against the plaintiff and his family members pending disposal of the main suit. 3.1. It is averred in the affidavit that originally Shri Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan was established by the father of the plaintiffs i.e., Satyanarayana Soni. He died on 16.02.2017 due to ill-health. There are series of litigations between the plaintiff and 2 LNA, J CMA.No.451 of 2023 the defendant with regard to properties and about said Satyanarayana Soni Seva Samithi Charitable Trust. It was averred that in the third week of May, 2009, the defendant managed to take Satyanarayna Soni Seva Sansthan and since then it is in their control. The defendant also gave a report to Police against plaintiff and after thorough investigation, Police have filed final report. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed a private complaint in C.C.No.722/2012 and the same ended in acquittal after full trial. Subsequently, the defendant issued a paper publication on 27.05.2017 in Hindi Milap Newspaper, contents of which are defamatory to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit claiming damages for defamation and the present interlocutory application seeking the interim relief.
4. The defendant filed counter opposing the petition on merits and on law. It was averred that initially, the plaintiff gave publication in daily Hindi Milap Newspaper on 24.05.2017, to which they issued reply in the same newspaper on 27.05.2017. Again on 03.06.2017, the plaintiff again made another publication in the same newspaper, for which the defendant was compelled to give reply by way of publication on 06.06.2017 and except these 3 LNA, J CMA.No.451 of 2023 two publications, which are intended to give reply to the earlier publications made by plaintiff, no defamatory statements were ever made by the defendant. The defendant did not make any such allegation defaming the plaintiff in the society and as such, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, the trial Court observed that the contents of the counters, which as per the plaintiff are defamatory to him, are filed in reply to the allegations made by the plaintiff in the different suits instituted by him and therefore, the same does not amount to defamation. The defendant is entitled to put forth his defence and prove his case. It was further observed that except filing counters as defence in the suits filed by the plaintiff, no other material was placed to prove that the defendant is continuing in making defamatory statements against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the plaintiff could not make out prima facie case and dismissed the interlocutory application. Hence, the present appeal. 4
LNA, J CMA.No.451 of 2023
6. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice is served upon the respondent, none appeared on his behalf.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India 1, John Thomas Vs. Dr. K.Jagadeesan 2 and the judgments of the High Court of Delhi in Smriti Zubin Irani Vs. Pawan Khera and others 3 and Sanjay Mishra Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and another 4 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Smt Madhuri Kukund Chitnis Vs. Mukund Martand Chitni and another 5 and the judgment of the High Court of Punjab-Haryana in Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 6.
8. The facts and circumstances of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are different from that of the present case and therefore, they have no application to the facts of the present case and will not help the case of the appellant. 1 (2016) 7 SCC 221 2 AIR 2001 SC 2651 3 2022 SCC Onlline Del 2310 4 (2012) 189 DLT 196 5 1990 Cri L J 2084 6 1961CRILJ710 5 LNA, J CMA.No.451 of 2023
9. The aforesaid judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant pertains to cases where purported defamation statements were made against an individual and were defended on the ground of freedom of speech under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. However, in the present case, initially, public notice was issued by the appellant in print media and in response to the same, reply public notices were issued by the respondent, against which proceedings were initiated for defamation. Therefore, the same cannot be equated to statements/publications made with an intention to defame the reputation of the appellant.
10. Further, the contention of the appellant that the statements of respondent are per se defamatory in nature or whether the same comes under within the Exception-9 to Section 499 IPC can only be adjudicated after full-fledged trial and at this stage, the same cannot be termed as defamatory statements intended to defame the appellant.
11. As such, in considered opinion of this Court, the appellant failed to make out prima facie case for grant of interim orders. 6
LNA, J CMA.No.451 of 2023
12. It is relevant to mention that in the impugned order, the trial court specifically recorded that except filing counters and written statements by the respondent in the legal proceedings initiated by the appellant, no other material is placed by the appellant to prove that the respondent is continuing in making defamatory statement against the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court has further observed that the contents of counters/written statements of respondent in reply to the allegations made by the appellant does not come under the definition of "defamation" and it is settled law that both parties shall be allowed to defend their case and that, a party cannot be restricted by the other party from defending its case or suggest other party as to what defence can be raised by it in defence. The allegations and counter allegations are to be proved during the course of trial and the suit is pending adjudication.
13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, injunction cannot be granted against the respondent since the imputations/allegations attributed to the respondent are not yet proved or adjudicated to be defamatory in nature.
7
LNA, J CMA.No.451 of 2023
14. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of the Appeal. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order while disposing the suit.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:02.04.2024 dr