Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd. & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3068 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 257/2017

%                                                      6th July, 2017

DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPAK SAHA               ..... Appellant
                Through: Mr. Nakul Pathana and Mr.
                         Akhand Pratap, Advocates.

                          versus

HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTRUES LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. Appl. Nos. 21061-62/2017 (for exemptions)

      Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.


      The applications stand disposed of.


FAO No. 257/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 21063/2017 (for
condonation of delay of 256 days in re-filing the appeal)
1.           This first appeal under Order XLIII Rule (1)(a) Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order of the Trial Court

dated 12.5.2016 which has allowed the application of the

respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and directed the




FAO No.257/2017                                             Page 1 of 7
 return of the plaint to be presented to the court of correct territorial

jurisdiction.


2.              The facts of the case are that the subject suit for

compensation and damages for defamation was filed by the

appellant/plaintiff     against   the   three   respondents/defendants.

Defamation is alleged to have been caused to the appellant/plaintiff on

account of an article dated 11.8.2014 published by the respondent

no.1/defendant no.1 in Bhagalpur, Bihar edition of the Hindi

newspaper Hindustan.

3.              It is settled law that defamation takes place because a

defamatory statement or article or any other material is published i.e it

comes to the knowledge of the public and the appellant/plaintiff is

brought down in estimation of the right thinking people of the society.

Publication is a sine qua non with respect to defamatory article because

defamation is only caused when the general public comes to know of

the defamatory article. As per the provisions of Sections 19 and 20

CPC a suit seeking compensation/damages on account of defamation

has to be filed where either whole or part of the cause of action arises

or where the defendant(s) reside or work for gain.          In case the

defendant is a company then additionally the Court has to consider the

provision of the Explanation to Section 20 CPC read with the ratio of

FAO No.257/2017                                               Page 2 of 7
 the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways

Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270 and

which holds that merely because a corporate office or a registered

office or a head office of a company is situated at a particular place the

same is not sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction if the cause of

action is found to have arisen at a place where the defendant company

has a branch office.


4.              In the present case it is undisputed that the publication is

in the Hindi newspaper Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar. There is

admittedly no circulation of the newspaper Hindustan outside

Bhagalpur in Bihar. It is not even the case of the appellant/plaintiff in

the plaint that the defamation is caused by reading of the article in the

newspaper Hindustan in Delhi, inasmuch as, no such argument has

been raised before this Court by the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, it is

seen that the entire cause of action as regards defamation has arisen

beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi, inasmuch as,

defamation is alleged to have been caused on account of publication of

the article in daily newspaper Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar.

Therefore, the Court below has rightly held that no part of the cause of

action has accrued in Delhi for this Court to have territorial

jurisdiction.


FAO No.257/2017                                                  Page 3 of 7
 5.           Learned counsel for the appellant argues that cause of

action has accrued in Delhi because interview which was given by the

appellant/plaintiff was given at Delhi and therefore in Delhi part of

cause of action has arisen. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a

judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in

the case of Jaharlal Pagalia Vs. Union of India, AIR 1959 Calcutta

273 and the relevant para 6 of which judgment which is relied upon

reads as under:-

      "6. Thus cause of action has one meaning in relation to the basis of a claim
      and another in relation to the jurisdiction of Court. The former is the
      restricted and the latter is the wider meaning of cause of action. In the
      restricted sense it includes facts constituting the infringement of the right
      and is thus the cause which is the foundation of the suit. In the wider sense
      it includes facts constituting the right itself. The expression cause of action
      for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court was held by Das J. (now Chief
      Justice of India) in Madanlal Jalan v. Madan Lal, 49 Cal WN 357: (AIR
      1949 Cal 495) to be an expression of wider import. To illustrate, the
      plaintiff could attract jurisdiction of the Court by pleading assignment of a
      promissory note within the jurisdiction of the court as a part of the cause of
      action. In the restricted sense the non-payment of the promissory note is
      the cause of action. In the wider sense cause of action will include the
      plaintiff's title and right acquired by the assignment of the promissory note,
      at a place within the jurisdiction of the Court. It is necessary for the
      plaintiff to prove assignment and therefore it is a part of the cause of
      action."


6.           Firstly,     in    my      opinion      the    counsel      for     the

appellant/plaintiff is in fact misleading the Court by arguing that the

interview having taken place at Delhi would give territorial jurisdiction

to Delhi, inasmuch as, on a query of the Court as to whether such a

plea is pleaded in the plaint, counsel for the appellant/plaintiff


FAO No.257/2017                                                         Page 4 of 7
 concedes that no plea is pleaded that part of cause of action has arisen

in Delhi because appellant's/plaintiff's interview was taken at Delhi.

Even assuming for the sake of argument such a plea has been

taken/raised, even then in my opinion, that would not confer territorial

jurisdiction to the courts at Delhi, inasmuch as, for a suit seeking

compensation/damages for defamation, publication is a sine qua non

because it is only by publication of the alleged defamatory article that

the alleged defamatory statement or article comes to the knowledge of

the general public including those persons in whose estimation the

plaintiff is brought down and is defamed. Therefore, mere interview in

itself taken of the appellant/plaintiff does not result in arising of cause

of action in Delhi, inasmuch as, defamation is caused only on account

of the article which has been published in the Hindi newspaper

Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar and having circulation only at

Bhagalpur in Bihar.


7.           Facts

of the judgment in the case of Jaharlal Pagalia

(supra) in no manner applies to the facts of the present case, inasmuch

as, the said case did not pertain to any suit for defamation and arising

of whole or part of cause of action for defamation merely because of

giving/taking of an interview. As already stated above, it is only

publication which results in defamation and without publication there

is no defamation.

8. The next argument urged on behalf of the

appellant/plaintiff was that since the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1

has a head office/corporate office in Delhi, therefore, this Court would

have territorial jurisdiction. This Court need not labor at length on this

aspect because the issue is now well settled against the

appellant/plaintiff for now over 27 years in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited (supra) and

which holds that a mere plea of existence of a head office or a

corporate office of a defendant company will not confer jurisdiction on

a court if the defendant company has a branch office at the place where

whole or part of cause of acting has arisen. In the present case, it is not

disputed that the respondent no.1/ defendant no. 1 has an office at

Bhagalpur in Bihar from where the Hindi newspaper Hindustan is

published.

9. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality

which is found in the impugned order returning the plaint to be filed in

the proper court of territorial jurisdiction.

10. Since this appeal is a gross wastage of judicial time and

having been filed against the settled law, as also without even taking

appropriate pleadings of interview given at Delhi giving rise to a cause

of action, and which even if taken would not have conferred territorial

jurisdiction, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs of

Rs.10,000/- and which shall be deposited within four weeks with the

website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in and receipt thereafter be filed in this

Court within two weeks. In case the receipt is not filed within the said

time the Registry will list the matter in Court for appropriate action to

be taken against the appellant/plaintiff.

JULY 06, 2017                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK