K.P. Malik vs Raj Kumar Sharma
2014 Latest Caselaw 3767 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Order delivered on: 19th August 2014

+             I.A. No. 22366/2012 in CS(OS) No. 333/2012

K.P.MALIK                                                   ..... Plaintiff
                          Through       Ms.Arti Bansal, Adv. with Mr. Ajay
                                        Digpaul, Adv.

                          versus

RAJ KUMAR SHARMA                                          .....Defendants
                Through                 Mr. Madhur Dhingra, Adv. with
                                        Ms.Harleen Kaur, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. By way of this order I propose to decide application being I.A. No. 22366/2012 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC filed by the defendant seeking for return of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for damages for a sum of Rs. 20,00,500/- against the defendant.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a senior journalist in Delhi who is associated with Rashtriya Lok Dal, a political party whereas the defendant is working as a reporter for the Hindustan Hindi newspaper in Agra. On 15th October, 2011 the plaintiff went to Agra for meeting other political workers of Rashtriya Lok Dal. In order to defame plaintiff with some ulterior objective, the defendant in conspiracy with certain local political workers of some other political parties framed a false story in the local edition of Hindi Hindustan

dated 17th October, 2011 at Agra wherein it was mentioned that the plaintiff demanded mobile phone and Rs.20,000/- for getting assembly seat for the forthcoming U.P. election from RLD and also made another false assertion that the plaintiff is of old age whereas the plaintiff is a young man of 42 years.

4. By way of instant application, the defendant has assailed the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the place of business and residence of the defendant is Agra and the publication of the news item, alleged to be defamatory is in Agra edition of the Hindustan Hindi; hence no cause of action arises in Delhi. Defendant relied on Section 19 of CPC to press his point that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further prayed that the plaint deserves to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this court and to grant liberty to the defendant to file his written statement after consideration of such issue of jurisdiction.

5. Reply has been filed to the application by the plaintiff denying the contents of the application.

6. It is argued by the plaintiff that the plaintiff, who is well known journalist in Delhi, at the relevant time, was working with Mint News channel of Hindustan Group at Delhi at a salary of Rs. 7 lacs per annum. Due to defamatory reporting of the defendant, the plaintiff had to resign from his job on 20th October, 2011. Thereafter the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 16th December, 2011 wherein it was demanded that the defendant by means of a duly publicized letter addressed to the plaintiff and/or a press statement/

notice/advertisement in the electronic and print media to withdraw the allegations and imputations. The defendant failed to comply with the demands made in the legal notice and subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant.

7. In the case of Indian Potash Ltd. vs. Media Contents and Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 28. Relevant para of the same reads as under:

"7. The above Section makes it abundantly clear that any suit for compensation for wrong done to a person can be filed either within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction where the defendant resides or carrying on business or it may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff if the wrong done was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In the event of publication of defamatory material, the wrong is done where the defamatory material is communicated and the moment the same is received by the persons, for whom it has been written. The publication of defamatory material against a person gives rise to a cause of action only when it is made known to the third party. The place of the third party and the place where it is known to a third party gains importance. The plaintiff may be living at any place. If publication of defamatory material against him is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is printed in books, newspaper is published, through electronic media on TV and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. It is the choice of the plaintiff to file the suit either at the place where publication has been made or the place where the defendant resides. Since in case of telecasting of a feature on TV by the channel which is for Indian audience and has all India viewers, the plaintiff has a choice to file the suit at those places where the plaintiff has been hit the most. In the present case, the

plaintiff was supplying milk to many organizations and institutions and marketing companies in Delhi. The business of the plaintiff was allegedly hit by broadcasting of such publication in Delhi. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff lies in Delhi and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. v. Dr. M. Karunanidhi, President of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party and Ors.1995(3)ALT108 the Andhra Pradesh High Court had similar view and observed as under:

"23. Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written.

Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication. All the three defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. In the ordinary course of business the sending of books containing defamatory matter by post or otherwise from the place where it is published to book distributor of another place is publication of that matter at latter place, particularly/ when it is read by them and/ or others. Under these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the importance of the aforesaid book containing chapters 9 and 10 would have aroused the curiosity of at least the book-seller to go through it immediately on its receipt and, therefore, this type of communication amounts to publication at Madras.

24. As noted above, the excerpts of chapters 9 and 10 of the aforesaid book in local newspapers is distinct publication. Much publicity was given for the sale of the book as is evident from the affidavits of the defendants. Therefore, a presumption regarding awareness of the contents of the concerned

newspapers can be raised against all the defendants because out of these defendants only the concerned matter would have been passed on to the newspapers concerned and thus all of them, prima facie, appear to be responsible alike for the publication of the alleged defamatory news item in the local newspapers."

8. In the above said para, the Court has also held that if the publication of the defamatory material against the plaintiff is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place shall also have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is printed in the books, newspaper is published, through electronic media on television and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, this Court has to see whether the present case is covered within the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Potash Ltd. (supra).

9. It is also the admitted position that while returning the plaint and rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the plaint as well as the documents filed along with the plaint. In para 20 of the plaint, it is stated that this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the plaintiff is working and residing in Delhi.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was constrained to give the resignation in the office of the Mint News channel in New Delhi in view of the fact that defamatory material hit the reputation of the plaintiff within the territory of this Court. Thus, the plaintiff had no option but to give resignation.

11. Counsel for the defendant has referred Section 19 of the CPC which reads as under:

"19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable. Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. Illustrations

(a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi."

12. In the present case, it is necessary to refer paras 11, 12 and 14 of the plaint which reads as under:

"11. That after publication of the malicious news item the news spread like a fire of the jungle. The Plaintiff, who is well known journalist in Delhi, at the relevant time was working with Mint News channel of Hindustan Group at Delhi at a salary of Rs.7 lacs per annum. The Plaintiff felt so humiliated and defamed that he had to resign from his job on 20.10.2011. Due to the defamatory reporting of the Defendant the Plaintiff lost his job. Presently the Plaintiff is not working.

12. That it is submitted that the Plaintiff has an unblemished and distinguished record of a reporting in Journalism and has an esteem respect in the society. The Plaintiff was at no point of time indulged in any corrupt practice or any wrong doing. The said imputations of the Defendant, as mentioned above have seriously prejudiced the dignity, prestige and reputation of the Plaintiff. The publication not only defames the Plaintiff in the eyes of the public who read the articles of the Defendant but also in the world of media. The Defendant

had published the news item with the malicious intention to defame the Plaintiff.

14. That the Plaintiff sent the legal notice dated 16.12.2011 wherein it was demanded that the Defendant by means of a duly publicized letter addressed to the Plaintiff and/or a press statement/notice/advertisement in the electronic and print media, withdraw the allegations and imputations are there in the defamatory news item. The Defendant failed to give any reply to the notice."

13. From the above said statement made in paras - 11, 12 and 14 it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff felt so humiliated and defamed at the relevant time when he was working with Mint News channel of Hindustan Group at Delhi from where he had to resign from his job on 20th October, 2011. Prima Facie, in view of above, I find no force in this application. Therefore the prayer made in the present application cannot be allowed. The application is accordingly dismissed.

14. However, it is clarified that the objection about the territorial jurisdiction shall remain intact and the same would be decided on its own merit at the final stage.

CS(OS) No. 333/2012

15. The plaintiff is granted four weeks' time to file the replication. List the matter before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of the documents on 17th November, 2014 and before Court on 2nd December, 2014 for framing of issues and directions for trial.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 19, 2014