Delhi High Court
Ritika Juneja & Ors vs Anshuman Narang on 19 July, 2019
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th July, 2019
+ CM(M) 1078/2019
RITIKA JUNEJA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. M.K. Gahlaut, Advocate.
versus
ANSHUMAN NARANG ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
%
CM APPL. 32205-32206/2019(exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
CM(M) 1078/2019 & CM APPL. 32204/2019
1. The present petition is directed against an order dated 23.04.2019
passed by the Additional District Judge- 02 (North-West), Rohini Courts,
Delhi in CS No. 550/2018 by which the application of the petitioners/
defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter, "the CPC") was dismissed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioners/
defendants in May, 2018 for defamation, harassment, and other reliefs. The
petitioner no. 1 [defendant no. 1] is the wife of the plaintiff, the petitioner
no. 2 [defendant no. 2] is her brother, and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 [defendant
nos. 3 and 4] are her parents.
3. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 were
married on 07.07.2014. It appears that their relationship ran into difficulties,
and various proceedings have been filed by the parties against each other.
The plaintiff alleges that he has suffered undue harassment at the hands of
the defendants, including inter alia by reason of an e-mail dated 06.04.2018
sent by the defendant no. 2 to IIM Lucknow, Noida Campus in which the
plaintiff had been admitted for an educational degree. The plaintiff has
alleged that the contents of the e-mail were defamatory and tarnished his
reputation. Further, he has alleged that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 have been
making calls and writing e-mails to the institute by which they are
threatening institute with criminal prosecution, if it does not cancel the
admission of the plaintiff. It is further stated in the plaint that the institute
has resultantly constituted an Enquiry Committee to look into the matter
against the plaintiff.
4. The relevant averments in the plaint are inter alia as follows:-
"11. That the plaintiff in the month of December, 2017
resigned from his job with Astha Packaging and joined a
job as Manager in ICICI Bank In Mumbai on 03.01.2018 at
higher salary of Rs.93,803/- p.m. It is pertinent to mention
here that on the basis of his score in GMAT Exam the
plaintiff was offered admission in International Program in
Management for Executives by reputed institute IIM-
Lucknow, Noida campus and for the better career and
future prospects plaintiff immediately resigned from ICIC
bank Mumbai and got enrolled himself into the above
Institute for academic session 2018-19. The plaintiff not
only procured the educational (scholar)loan for pursuing
the aforesaid course but has also deposited the fees of Rs
16,23,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakh twenty three thousand
only ) in three installments to the institute.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
14. That it was a matter of grave shock and dismay to the
plaintiff that immediately after the Hon'ble Judge Manu Rai
Sethi had passed his order dated 06.04.2018, releasing the
passport of Plaintiff for joining IPMX Course , IIM-
Lucknow, the defendant no.2 brother of defendant no.1
having mobile no. 8700102210 on the same day with malice
and in order to tarnish the reputation of plaintiff sent an
email at 4.17 p.m. to the institute IIM, Lucknow containing
false, frivolous, slanderous and defamatory allegations
against the Plaintiff so that Institute should cancel the
admission of the plaintiff. Actually the aforesaid e-mail
dated 6.4.2017 was sent by the defendant no.2 to the
institute in order to put spokes and hurdles in registration
of Plaintiff with the Institute...
15. That because of the above mentioned email dated
06.04.2018 of defendant no.2 the institute had sent an email
dated 13.04.2018 to the Plaintiff requiring him to bring No
Objection Certificate from the concerned court for pursuing
IPMX program and travelling abroad and deadline for
submission of above certificate was given 20.04.2018. The
above e-mail dated 6.4.2018 as sent by defendant no.2 to
the Institute has not only tarnished and spoiled the
reputation of Plaintiff with the institution but has also
caused great mental agony to the Plaintiff. In fact because
of the above e-mail dated 6.4.2018 of the defendant no.2 the
plaintiff has become a stuff of mockery among his fellow
students and they started addressing him as criminal which
has not only caused a great humiliation and mental agony
to the plaintiff but he has also become reluctant to attend
his classes in the Institute.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. That it is highly shocking that the defendant no.2 in
order to malign the reputation of the plaintiff in the campus
sent a email dated 6.4.2018 which was not only for ulterior
motives but also was far away from the facts as neither the
plaintiff's application for release of its passport was
dismissed ten times nor any case for forgery had been
registered against the plaintiff for getting bail from Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Similarly the plaintiff is
also not involved in any manipulations as alleged in the
above-mentioned e-mail dated 6.4.2018 of the defendant
no.2. In fact the above mentioned e-mail was in the form of
threat to the institute so that it should cancel the admission
of the plaintiff.
18. That even after the Hon'ble Judge Sh. Manu Rai Sethi,
ASJ, Rohini Court has given No Objection to the plaintiff
for pursuing IPMX course vide its order dated 21.4.2018
the defendants no.1 to 4 have not stopped in their
nafarious designs to malign the reputation of the plaintiff in
the institute and on the daily basis defendants no.1 to 4
have been making calls and writing e-mails to the IIM
institute by which they are not only threatening the institute
that either it should cancel the admission of the plaintiff or
the institute would be involved in criminal cases. As a result
of this disgusting and mischievous conduct of the
defendants the institute sent a letter to the plaintiff vide its
e-mail dated 18.5.2018 stating therein that An enquiry
committee has been constituted to look into the matter as
IIM Lucknow has received some information related to the
plaintiff and his involvement in some criminal and court
cases and further the plaintiff was required to be available
with all related documents at IIM Lucknow, Noida Campus.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
21. Actually there are number of litigations are pending
between the parties and if the defendants have still any
grievances remained against the plaintiff they could have
moved before the court of Justice but the defendants
deliberately, intentionally and with malafide intention in
order to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff and to
destroy his carrier have opted this wrong way and made
illegal attempts which are wrong and against the law as the
Hon'ble court of Manu Rai Sethi ASJ Rohini Courts has
already given the permission to the plaintiff to pursue his
IPMX with IIM Lucknow. Infact the defendants no. 1 to 4
can not be permitted to take law in their hands and spoil
the life of the plaintiff. Hence the aforesaid illegal acts of
defendants no.1 to 4 of making threatening calls and
writing defamatory letters against the plaintiff to the
institute are liable to be restrained by a decree of injunction
from doing such activities which would disturb and spoil
not only the mental peace of the plaintiff but also his
reputation.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
24. That after the e-mail dated 6.4.2018 sent by the
defendant no. 2 and subsequent illegal and nefarious
activities of defendant no.1 to 4 by sending threatening e-
mails and making calls to the IIM Lucknow so that the
plaintiff's admission is cancelled, the plaintiff is facing
mental agony, humiliation, harassment by changed attitude
of the institute along with his batch mates towards him. The
acts of the defendants have not only tarnished, spoiled,
lowered the reputation, character and credit of Plaintiff in
the institute and among his batch mates but have also
caused great humiliation, mental agony, harassment as he
is continuously facing the mocking from his surrounding
calling him accused and making fun of him. The
humiliation, harassment and mental agony caused to the
Plaintiff has not only affected his health but has gravely
tarnished and spoiled his reputation as well. The Plaintiff
had sleepless nights after the incidents of mocking, directly
or indirectly, in his institute occurred and had to take
medical help in order to get his health fit and better.
25. That no law has permitted the defendants to destroy the
carrier of the plaintiff and tarnish his reputation in the
society by making false and frivolous e-mails and calls to
the plaintiff's institute. Actually the loss of reputation which
the plaintiff has suffered and the mental agony caused by
the illegal acts of defendant no.1 to 4 can not be measured
and further compensated in any form but still the
defendants no.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay
damages of Rupees 50,00,000/-(Fifty Lakhs Only) to the
plaintiff."
5. On the basis of these averments, the plaintiff has claimed the
following reliefs in the suit:-
"IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY
PRAYED that this HON‟BLE COURT may be pleased to
pass a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 to 4 thereby
retraining them, their agents, servants, representatives,
associates and relatives from
a) approaching, contacting, writing or communicating
the Institute IIM, Lucknow, Noida Campus in any manner
Particularly making threatening calls and sending e-mails
containing false, frivolous, slanderous and defamatory
allegations against the Plaintiff.
b) approaching, contacting, writing or communicating
the ESCP, Europe, Business School, London Campus, 537,
Finchley Road, London, NW37BG, United Kingdom in any
manner Particularly making threatening calls and sending
e-mails containing false, frivolous, slanderous and
defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff.
c) approaching, contacting, writing or communicating
the The YMCA Indian Student Hostel,41 Fitzory Square,
London, WIT 6AQ in any manner Particularly making
threatening calls and sending e-mails containing false,
frivolous, slanderous and defamatory allegations against
the Plaintiff.
d) approaching, contacting, writing or communicating
the government and private organization including UK
Embassy and immigration department or any other
Ministry in any manner Particularly making threatening
calls and sending e-mails containing false, frivolous,
slanderous and defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff.
e) Further grant a decree of damages for the amount of
Rs.50,00000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 to 4. Jointly and
severally.
Any other or such others, as this Hon‟ble court may deem
fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants."
6. During the course of proceedings, the petitioners/defendants filed the
application under consideration under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
contending that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against them.
The said application has been rejected by the impugned order of the Trial
Court in which, after reference to the judgments cited, it has been observed
that the plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 24 of the plaint pertain not just to
the e-mails sent by defendant no. 2 on 06.04.2018 but also to the e-mails
and calls from the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to the IIM institute, resulting in
mental harassment and reputational damage to the plaintiff.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view
that the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution. The law regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC is well settled. The Court is bound to adjudicate the
said application only on the basis of the plaint and the documents filed with
the plaint. The evidence which may be led by the parties and its probative
value do not form any part of the consideration at the stage of rejection of
the plaint. The strength of the plaintiff's case is to be adjudicated at trial
and not on an application under Order VII Rule 11. In this regard, the
Supreme Court has, in Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC
557, held as follows :-
"9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that
the relevant facts which need to be looked into for
deciding an application thereunder are the averments in
the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before
registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the
defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial.
For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses
(a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in
the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant
in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that
stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement
without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order,
therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction
vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The
High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects."
The Supreme Court in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties,
Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 100 has held as
follows:-
"12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint
cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by
the defendant in his written statement or in an application
for rejection of the plaint. The court has to read the entire
plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause
of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected
by the court exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11
of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be
gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint
in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A
cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to
be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose,
the material facts are required to be stated but not the
evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings
relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful
default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as
the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires
determination by the court, the mere fact that in the
opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot
be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case,
the averments made in the plaint, as has been noticed by
us, do disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the
High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order
7 Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of
the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants."
8. In the present case, the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is on
account of defamation and harassment. He has clearly averred that all the
defendants have made false statements to third parties which have resulted
in damage to him. Whether the case pleaded by him is right or wrong is a
matter for trial. Suffice it to say that the plaint does not suffer from lack of
cause of action, and for the purposes of Article 227, it is not possible to
conclude that the Trial Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or that
the findings recorded by it is perverse.
9. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
Dasti.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
JULY 19, 2019
„pv‟
