Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Trans Asian Industries Exposition vs M/S G. S. Berar And Company on 7 May, 2025
S. No. 57
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
FAO 29/2023
TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION
PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate
Vs.
M/S G. S. BERAR AND COMPANY
PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ibrahim Mehraj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL-JUDGE
ORDER
07.05.2025
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the
Trial court, viz. 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendants, respondents
herein, seeking rejection of plaint of plaintiffs, petitioners herein, titled
as Trans Asian Industries Exposition Private Limited and others vs. M/s
G. S. Berar and Company Private Limited and others and for setting-
aside the same.
2. The grounds on which the rejection of the plaint was sought for in the
application before the Trial Court was that it had no jurisdiction because
cause of action took place in Delhi and the respondents were also
residing at Delhi, so the question that arose before the Trial Court was
whether the suit was liable to be rejected on the ground of the court
lacking the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
3. The Trial court has passed the following order in the application:
1. Within the ambit of his order, an application moved by the defendant under
O 7 rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint mainly on ground that this court has
no territorial jurisdiction, nor cause of action in Srinagar will stand disposed
of.
2. Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is sought on the ground that:-
i. The present suit for Damages, by way of recompense for tort of libel
and slander is an abuse of the process of law and has been instituted in
order to harass the Defendant No. 1 Company, Ms. Soni Dave
(Defendant No. 2) and Mr. Aditya Dave (Defendant No. 3) who are
both senior citizens and Directors of the Defendant No. 1 Company.
Plaintiff No. 2 and 3 have since long been residents of Delhi and at the
relevant time used to operate from their offices at M-1, Hauz Khas, New
Delhi. Plaintiff No. 1 calls its Delhi office its "corporate office" ( s stated
at Pg. 294 in SLP (c) no. 16696-16697 of 2021, annexed hereto as
Annexure-A1) and has been operating solely in Delhi since the year
2016. None of the Defendants has any place of residence or work in
Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, and none of them has had any business
dealings in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. It is also noted that even in
the plaint there is no allegation to this effect. The Plaintiffs have been
engaged in Litigation with the Defendants since the year 2008.
Defendants 1 and 2 had initially filed two Civil suits numbered CS (OS)
2330-2331 of 2008 before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi (now
transferred and renumbered as CS DJ No. 9346/2016 and 9347/2016
before the District Court at Saket, New Delhi). In the year 2016, an
interim decree was passed in favour of the Defendants vide RFA (OS)
105-106 of 2015 [arising out of CS (OS) 2330-2331 of 2008]. Despite
the clear directions of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in RFA (OS) 105-106 of 2015 that "all outstanding amounts shall
be cleared before 31 July, 2016", the Plaintiff did not pay the amounts
so ordered. Hence, the Defendants were compelled to file Execution
Petition Nos. 3081 & 3082 of 2016 before the Court of the Ld. ADJ at
Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said matters are still pending since the
year 2016 due to the dilatory tactics employed by the Plaintiffs. CS DJ
No. 9346-9347 of 2016 before the Saket court also remains pending.
Furthermore, two more suits (CS DJ 113/2017 and CS DJ 538 of 2017)
have also been instituted between the parties. Despite several orders of
the Executing court at Saket, the Defendants have not paid the sums as
ordered. Aggrieved thereby, the Defendants filed CM(M) No. 160/2022
before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and prayed for compliance of the
Orders of the Executing Court. Vide order dated 18.02.2022 in CM(M)
No. 160/2022, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ordered the Plaintiffs
inter alia to file their complete profit and loss accounts and balance
sheets and asked Mr. Mohd Hanif Mir and Mr. Mohd Yaseen Mir
(Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3) to be personally present in Court. However, Mr.
Mohd Yaseen Mir did not comply with the Orders of the Court dated
18.02.2022 whereupon, vide Order dated 15.03.2022, he was again
directed to appear before the Hon'ble Court in person on 20.04.2022.
Hence, on 18.04.2022, the Defendants tendered some payment as
ordered by the Executing Court but has post-dated some of the cheques
to more than a month later. It is evident that it was because the
Defendants were continuing to pursue their cases against the plaintiffs
herein for the recovery of very substantial dues. To harass the
Defendants, this suit has been filed. It is evident that the Plaintiffs hope
to thereby pressurize the Defendants into giving up their Claims. Even
the timing of filing of the present suit shows that the suit was filed on
the very next date after Order dated 15-03-2022 was passed. In fact, the
whole purpose is to drag the Defendants to a far-away place so that they
cannot effectively defend themselves.
ii. It is further contended the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi [in
para 18 of the reply dated 14.03.2022 in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 160 of
2022] the Plaintiffs have themselves averred that since the year 2016
they have not conducted any business in Kashmir and have been
operating solely from Delhi. The said reply is supported by the Affidavit
of Mr. Mohd. Hanif Mir (Plaintiff No. 3) who is also the Director of the
Plaintiff No. 1 company. Thus, it is not comprehensible how, if they had
no sales operation, the plaintiffs could have suffered any damage to their
reputation in Kashmir, and for which they are claiming damages. Thus,
as per the Plaintiffs own admissions in the Plaint (Para 9 and 16), all the
events occurred in Delhi. Thus, the alleged cause of action arose entirely
in Delhi. Territorial jurisdiction must be specifically pleaded, and it
must be shown how the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the suit
before summons can be issued to the party.
iii. Thus, a suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff at:-
a. The Court where the wrong was done, or
b. Where the Defendant resides, carries on
business or personally works for gain.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs could sue at the place where the alleged wrong
was done, i.e., Delhi, since the allegations were allegedly made in
pleadings made before the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Pooja Talwar, ADJ-01,
Saket Courts, New Delhi. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that the
slanderous statements were made in their office at M-1, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi. Hence, on this alleged cause of action also the Plaintiffs
could sue only in Delhi. Finally, the Defendants reside and carry-on
business, and personally work for gain only in Delhi. Therefore, as per
Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Plaintiff could only
sue at Delhi and nowhere else.
iv. Insofar as the libelous statements in pleadings before courts are
concerned, it is submitted that filing a suit for defamation in respect of
the same is barred by law since the same is covered by absolute
privilege. However, it is noted that the Plaint does not even mention the
date when the alleged slanderous statement was made, the time, and
does not even mention the name of any person in whose presence such
statements were made. Obviously, the entire allegation is a concoction.
v. It is also noteworthy that the Plaintiffs do not even mention how any
insult or damage was suffered by the Plaintiffs in Kashmir. Thus, no
clear cause of action to sue has been disclosed. Hence, the present suit
is barred since the cause of action has not been clearly disclosed and no
right to sue can accrue from vague allegations as made by the Plaintiffs.
It is lastly prayed that this Court may be pleased to Reject the present
plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, being barred in law and impose
heavy costs on the plaintiff in favour of the Defendants for filing the
present suit and abusing the process of court.
3. The plaintiff/non-applicant has not submitted objections to the application,
but has put forwarded his argument.
4. During course of arguments, Id. Counsel for defendant/applicant reiterated
the ground taken in application and has mainly contended that the damages
are sought for the to recompense for tort of libel and slander which is alleged
to taken place in Delhi and defendants also admittedly resides in Delhi and
also carries out the business in Delhi. So admittedly the cause of action has
taken place in Delhi and defendant resides in Delhi. So the court in Delhi
has territorial Jurisdiction to try the suit and this suit is not triable before
this court. He has contended that section 19 CPC is to be adhered to and
therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit Id. counsel has relied
on Escorts Limited Vs. Tejpal Singh Sisodia 2019 SCC online Del 7607
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
5. Per contra ld. counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant has contended that the
head office of the plaintiff is situated at Nishat Srinagar Kashmir which is
apparent from certification of incorporation issued by Registrar of
Companies J&K dt. 29-08-1988. Even the resolution dt. 14-05-2019 relied
by the plaintiff himself wherein the manager Arjamand Andrabi has been
authorized by the plaintiff to institute the suit, was also passed in meeting
of board of directors of the plaintiff in Nishat Srinagar. It is further
contended that in para 14 & 15 of plaint it is specifically mentioned that by
way of averments in the pleadings before the court of Delhi, have very far
reaching consequences and ramification with reference to the market,
Goodwill and reputation, both locally i.e. the principle places of business
J&K in India and outside India which has subjected the plaintiff for
embarrassment, ridicule and serious prejudice causing loss and reputation
and respect. So the wrong done to plaintiff in person has ramification in
Srinagar also so this court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
6. Heard both the sides and perused the record of the file minutely.
7. To begin with it is beaten law, that the averments in the plaint alone are to
be considered while considering an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC.
No other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. In Apex Court
Judgment on the point Hon'ble Judge Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y.
Chandrachud in Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat
and Ors in civil appeal No. 4665 2021. Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3899
of 2021 in Para 9 and 16 has held as under:-
"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 there
under 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 arial court"
It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11. the court has to
look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial
court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written
statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the Courts to scrutinize the
averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in
deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the
pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and
the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have
been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Lal Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC
184] and Mayar (HK) Ltd v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express (2006) 3 SCC
100]."
"16. Order 7 Rale (d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected "where
the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Hence,
so onder to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in
the plaint which will have to be comersed. The Court while deciding such an
application must have due regard only to the statements is the plaint. Whether
the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the
plaint and it is not open to decide die issue on the basis of any other material
including the written statement in the case".
8. Before proceeding further to lay down the matrix of the plaint. The brief
averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff No. 1 is a private Ltd. Company,
having been incorporated way in the year 1998 under and in terms of Indian
Companies Act and has its registered office located at Nishat, Srinagar-
Kashmir. The company has authorized its manager namely Arjamand
Andrabi to institute this suit vide resolution dated 14-05-2019. The plaintiff
No.1 private Limited Company has been promoted by the plaintiffs 2 and
3, who together being the Directors of the Company, together constitute the
Board of Directors of plaintiff No.1, and are the permanent residents of
Srinagar- J&K, have as well been residing at their different places of
business both throughout India as also outside. The principal place of
business at Nishat Srinagar, the plaintiff No. 1 operating under the control
of plaintiffs 2 and 3, has its branches, business stores/retail outlets at various
internationally acclaimed tourist destinations both within and outside the
country. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the descendants of a business family
engaged in manufacturer and marketing of Kashmir Art and Craft products
in the nature of culture goods, oriental carpets and ethnic handicrafts of
exquisite quality for the last more than two hundred years, coupled with
impeccable business credentials, they have acquired high degree of
goodwill and business/trading reputation, both within the business
community and public in general, throughout the country and outside. As a
matter of fact, the reputation of the plaintiffs in the field has become
synonymous with the manufacture, sale and quality of Kashmir Art and
Craft products. Enabling the plaintiff company to main Ltd. very high
financial echelons and a turn-over of around rupees two hundred crores for
the last three years, with a employment strength of about two thousand
employees, serving at different stations both in India and abroad. The
plaintiffs 2 and 3 by virtue of their honest and truthful devotion and
dedication towards the business have not only secured outstanding
professional succession the business on their own merit but have as well
attained and do enjoy excellent and immaculate reputation in the society,
their business competitors business associates, friends relations and
acquaintance. The plaintiff company had in past taken on lease certain
properties of the defendant No.1 at M-1, Haus Khas, New Delhi which
included a basement floor and a portion of the ground floor behind the front
flat and front portion of the ground floor of the said properties.
Unfortunately, certain disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants
herein, have culminated into a litigation by way of the legal actions
instituted by both sides against each other before competent courts of law
at New Delhi. Instead of contesting the litigations on their own merit before
the respective courts at New Delhi, the defendants in connivance with each
other have chosen to conduct and continue a campaign of vilification against
the plaintiffs and thereby subject them to deliberate and willful defamatory
attacks on false and unfounded imputations and premises, touching not only
the persons of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 but also the trading activities and
dealings of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submit that the aforesaid false and
frivolous as also malicious and defamatory campaign charged by the
defendants has been made by way of categorical statements made by them
in terms of the pleadings before the concerned courts and on, public record.
The same has been done by the defendants in the form of statements made
in the inter-se pending litigations at Delhi, namely Suit titled "M/s G.S.
Berar & Co Pvt Ltd and another Vs M/s Trans Asain Industries Exposition
Pvt. Ltd (Suit No. 9347/16) ie. 2331/2008 (old)". Suit titled "Soni Dave Vs.
M/s Trans Asain Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd (Suit No. 9346/2016 i.e.
2330/2008 (old)" Civil suit titled "M/s Trans Asain Industries Exposition
Pvt. Ltd vs Aditya Dave and others (CSDJ 113/2017) Aditya Dave & Others
Vs. M/s Trans Asain Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd (CS No. 538 of 2017)".,
filed before District Court in Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Such
statements besides being false, unfounded and baseless were and are
absolutely irrelevant and un-connected with the controversy touching the
above litigation, thereby having very strong potential to injure the
reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs in the society. This is because the
inter-se dispute between the plaintiffs and their rivals in the suit bearing
CS(OS) No. 154/2009 had long time back been amicably settled, rendering
all previous proceedings including ex-parte orders of the court as
infructuous and without any effect. As a matter of fact, the statements made
were and are tainted with an ulterior design on the part of the defendants to
defame the plaintiffs in the estimation of their acquaintance in the business
or otherwise, both within India and outside. Similar statements were
repeated by the defendants in their pleadings in Civil Suit No. 538/2017
titled "Aditya Dave & Others Vs. M/s Trans Asian Industries Exposition
(JANDK) Pvt. Ltd & Others". That, the plaintiffs submit that the above
statements of fact made by the defendants qua their written pleadings, being
false Land unfounded and contrary to the records have been made with an
intent and tendency to incite an adverse opinion and feeling in the entire
business circle and amongst the business associates of the plaintiffs. The
said statements obviously have very far-reaching consequences and
ramifications with reference to the plaintiffs' market goodwill and
reputation, both locally at their principal place of business as also outside
the UT of J&K In India and outside India. It is pertinent to state that besides
the false imputations and defamatory statements made by the defendants in
writing, they have as well been spreading the alleged ill reputation of the
plaintiffs publically and consequently the plaintiffs have been contacted and
questioned by their associates in business and employees both at Delhi and
Jammu & Kashmir, which has as well subjected the plaintiff to
embarrassment, ridicule and serious prejudice, causing loss of reputation
and respect. It is specifically stated that many business associates in the
valley have stopped dealing with the plaintiffs because of defamatory acts
and statements of the defendants. In the month of January, 2021, the
Defendant No.2 and 3 (husband and wife) out of their own wish and will
approached the plaintiff No.3 at his office at M-1,, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
in order to discuss regarding the pending litigations and for reaching the
amicable settlement since the terms were not reached between the plaintiffs
and the Defendant No.2 and 3, the said defendants started shouting and
abusing the plaintiff No.3 in his office in front of his staff and clients who
were present during the Defendant No. 2 and 3 visit and made slanderous
allegations against the plaintiffs. Such statements made are defamatory in
nature and are not only untrue but the same have caused insult and damage
to the reputation of the plaintiffs not only in Delhi but also in Kashmir. The
plaintiffs are entitled in law to claim recompense both for the injury caused
by the Defendant's Tortuous act of Libel to their reputation, pride and
esteem and for the grief and distress felt and suffered by the Plaintiffs 2 and
3 on learning about the disparaging imputations made by the defendants
exhibiting the Plaintiffs, their business, Business Affairs/activities and
conduct thereof in a ridiculous light. The Defendant is liable in law to
compensate the Plaintiffs for the harm injury caused by the tort of libel and
slander committed by the Defendants quantified at Rs.50,00,00, 000/-
(Rupees Fifty Crores only) being the fair estimate of compensation which
the Defendants should be made liable to pay to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
further submit that since the Defendants has failed to comply with the terms
of the legal notice dated 20-02-2021, therefore, the present suit for damages
by way of recompense for tort of libel and slander committed by the
Defendants against the plaintiff. The cause of action accrued/arose to the
plaintiffs on 16-1-2014, 17-10-2016, 28-4-2017, 13-5-2017, 11-9-2018
when the imputations in the pleadings were made and filed on public record
in the pending litigations in competent court in New Delhi was made. The
cause of action further arose as despite making the imputation of the
plaintiffs publically for which plaintiffs has been contacted and questioned
by several of its vendors, staff in Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir recently in
the month of February, 2021 and the plaintiffs are subjected to contempt
and ridicule and has suffered immense prejudice and loss of good will,
reputation, standing and goodwill in the industry. Many vendors in Kashmir
have stopped dealing with the plaintiffs because of the defamatory acts of
the defendants. The cause of action further arose in the month of January,
2021 when, the Defendant No.2 and 3 (husband and wife) out of their own
wish and will approached the Plaintiff No.3 at his office at M-1, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi in order to discuss regarding the pending litigations and for
reaching the amicable settlement since the terms were not reached between
the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 and 3, and made slanderous allegations
against the plaintiffs. Such statements made by the Defendants 2 and 3 are
defamatory in nature and are not only untrue but the same has caused insult
and damage to the reputation of the Plaintiffs not only in Delhi but also in
Kashmir. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiffs sent a legal
notice dated 20-2-2021, by way of speed post, courier and email to the
defendants and the defendants failed to comply with the terms of legal
notice dated 20-2-2021 and gave a false and frivolous reply dated 27-2-2021
and the cause of action is recurring. Hence the suit is within time. Lastly
decree, for payment of Rs.50.00 crores (Rupees Fifty Crores only) as
compensation for the publication of libel and slander be passed in favour of
the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
The provisions of law which is attracted herein is enshrined under order 7
rule 11 CPC which reads as under:
11. Rejection of plaint-The plaint shall be rejected in the following
cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by
the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails
to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails
to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9];
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation
or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court,
for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause
of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that
refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff".
As has been held in the judgments, including. Exphar SA and Ors. Vs
Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 688. Saleem Bhai and
Ors, Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 557. LT Foods Limited
v. Heritage Foods (India) Limited. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2918, Indovax
Pvt. Ltd. v. Merck Animal Health, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9393, G.D. Foods
MFG (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zihawa Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC On Line Del
8372 etc., averments made in the plaint are to be taken on demurrer and the
merits of the case and the defence available to the defendant are irrelevant
to decide the question, whether or not to reject the plaint.
While considering the plaint, it transpires that indulgence of this court is
sought for filing this suit for damages by way of recompense for tort of libel
and slander by way of a decree for payment of Rs. 50 Crore as compensation
for the publication of libel and slander. The plaintiffs case is that the
defamation by way of false and frivolous statement made by defendant in
terms of pleading before the Courts and on public record in New Delhi in
different litigation between the parties, has caused loss or goodwill,
reputation of plaintiffs firm. So apparently the publication as per plaintiff is
been done in the pleadings before the court in Delhi against the plaintiff
which has potential to reach every nook and corner of the business world
touching the plaintiffs reputation and also subjecting them to agonize
thestate of loss in reputation and prestige in the eyes of clients in the
customs and thereby affecting their goodwill and reputation in the business
society. It is therefore, an admitted case of plaintiff that the pleadings before
the court in New Delhi has caused defamation to its name. So admittedly,
(i) publication of the defamatory material has taken place in New Delhi as
such the cause of action has taken place in New Delhi, (ii) it is also an
admitted case of plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 and 3 reside in New Delhi
and the defendant No. 1 is a registered company, is having its registered
office at 39 Subashmark New Delhi. Therefore, apparently the defendants
reside and carries on the business in New Delhi.
In such a situation where wrong to a person is alleged for which
compensation is sought for damages the place of suing is covered u/s 19 of
CPC which lays down:
" 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables: 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."
Now the question of consideration is "whether this court has a territorial
jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground of ramification is Srinagar of
the defamatory statements alleged to have been done by the defendant,
in the pleadings before the courts in Delhi, or whether it gives territorial
jurisdiction to this court to try this suit?"
Defamation has two main ingredients: first, there should be a statement
injurious to a person's reputation; and second, that statement should be
communicated to a person other than the plaintiff.2. This second
requirement is commonly referred to as "Publication" and is a sine quo
non of defamation. The exercise of territorial jurisdiction in personal
actions against the defendant is covered by Sections 195 and 206 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1987 (CPC). Section 19 has three ingredients:
firstly, it applies where "wrong" was done to a person or movable
property; secondly, it applies only when the place where "wrong" was
done in different from the place where defendant is domiciled; and
thirdly, where the second ingredient is satisfied, the plaintiff has the
option to sue the defendant either at the place of the latter's domicile or
where the "wrong was done". Since defamation is personal wrong, suit
for defamation will be covered by Section 19. The "wrong" referred to
in Section 19 is the "Publication" of the defamatory statement, because
"Publication" gives rise to a cause of action. Therefore, plaintiff will
have the option to institute a suit for defamation either where the
defendant is domiciled (irrespective of the place of "publication") or at
each such place where the "publication is made
It is apparent that the publication is only by way of pleadings filed
before the concerned court in Saket, New Delhi and before Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it is been circulated
or have been published in any manner within the jurisdiction of this
court i.e. in Srinagar. Section 19 CPC as mentioned above enshrines
only two places for filing the suits for wrong to a person (1) were the
cause of action is accrued and (2) where defendants reside. Admittedly
the cause of action and defendant's No. 2 and 3 residence and registered
office of defendant No. 1 is situated in New Delhi.
The point raised by the ld. counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff which
is a registered company has its registered office in Srinagar, has an
impact of loss of reputation in Srinagar also, if considered, also, is not
tenable in the eyes of law.
i. Firstly the residence of plaintiff which is the company in the instant
case i.e. legal personality having its registered office at Srinagar,
will not have any effect for determining the place of suing. As the
place of residence or carrying of the business, of plaintiff is not,
enshrined under section 19 of CPC as for the case of compensation
for wrong done to a person or movable property.
ii. Secondly the publication as such is not been done or circulated
anywhere within the jurisdiction of this court in Srinagar. As far as
the impact of the alleged defamatory statements in Srinagar is
concerned, will not give it a territorial jurisdiction for filing the suit
in Srinagar Reliance can be made in Escorts Limited vs. Tejpal
singh Sisodia 2019 SCC online Del 7607 the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court wherein it is held that if the wrong takes place in the
jurisdiction where defendant resides, i.e. place of cause of action and
place of residence of defendants is one place then the plaintiff has
no option but to prefer suit where the defendant resides. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is being reproduced hereunder:-
46. There is another aspect. Section 19 vests a plaintiff in a suit for
compensation for defamation within an option to sue in either of
the Courts i.e. where the wrong is done or where the defendant
resides/carries on business, only when the two are different. This
is clear from use of the words"... if the wrong was done within the
local limits of jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides,
or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the
local limits of jurisdiction of another Court....,". However this
option would not be available to a plaintiff, wrong to whom by
defamation is done within the jurisdiction of same Court within
whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. It will not be open to
such a plaintiff to contend that wrong has been done to him/it, also
within the jurisdiction of another Court. I repeat, Section19 vested
option only in plaintiff for a situation where no wrong is done
where defendant resides. If wrong is done where defendant
resides, there is no option but to sue where defendant resides.
22. Attention of the counsel for the plaintiff has also been drawn
to Mahadev I Trade v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) 242 DLT 273 (SLP(C) No. 28925/2017 preferred where
against was dismissed in limine on 10 November, 20178).
Frankinn Aviation Service Pvt. Ltd., in that case had instituted the
suit in the Courts at Delhi, for recovery of damages for
defamation. One of the defendants impleaded was the Assistant
Police Inspector in Maharashtra Police who was the investigating
Officer of the FIR lodged in that case by the other defendants
against Frankinn. The said police official applied for deletion of
his name from the suit. It was observed that the act of plaintiff
Frankinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Of dragging the defendants
who were resident of Pune to Delhi for contesting the suit for
damages for defamation was abuse of the process of the Court.
More so, since the plaintiff also had an institute at Pune and was
carrying on business at Pune and could very well have instituted
the suit at Pune."
17. The plaintiff has paid the reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in 2022 Live Law (SC) 280 Civil appeal No. 1848 of 2022 titled Sri
Biswanath Banik & anr. Vs. Smt. Sulanga Bose & ors. Hon'ble High Court
of Gauhati 1990 Legal Eagle (GAU) 61 titled as State of Meghalaya and
others Vs. Jyotsna Das. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2022 Live Law
(SC) 703 titled H. S. Deekshit and anr. Vs. M/S Ropoli Overseas Limited
and Ors., Hon'ble High Court of Bombay 1974 Legal Eagle (BOM) 269
title asState of Maharashtra Vs. Sarvodya Industries and Hon'ble High
Court of Calcutta 1958 Legal Eagle (CAL) 119 titled as Jaharlal Pagalia Vs.
In Civil Appeal No. /2022 @ Petition for Special Leave to appeal (C) No.
2177/2022) titled H. S. Deekshit and anr Vs. M/s Met Ropli overseas
Limited and ors and also Civil Appeal No. 1848 of 2022 March 14th 2022
titled Sri Biswanath Banik and anr Vs. Smt. Sulanga Bose and Ors. Both
the authorities laid down the basic principal governing the order 7 rule 11
CPC which are being adhered by this court also. As for as remaining
authorities are concerned, they are regulate the section 19 and 20 of CPC
where the compensation for wrong done to the movable property and it has
been observed that if the suit is required this section 20 CPC does not come
into the operation is also relied the relevant law which governs the order 7
rule 11 CPC cannot be disposed but it is not concerned with the facts of the
present case.
18. In view of the above discussion and the authorities relied upon, this court
has considered view that this court has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the suit, once the court has decided that no territorial jurisdiction to entertain,
try and decide the present suit then the court cannot examine as to whether
the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action or not, as whether
the plaint can be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC. The only option left with
court to return the plaint as per order 7 rule 11 CPC to the plaintiffs to present
it before the appropriate forum. File stands accordingly ordered. Office is
directed to prepare an index which shall go to records after its due
compilation."
4. In the context of above, Section 19 CPC provides for instituting the
suits for compensation for wrongs to a person or movables and also as
regards the jurisdiction of the court with respect to such suits. Thus, it
would be profitable to reproduce Section 19 as under:
"19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables: 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."
5. What is provided in Section 19 of CPC is that where a suit is for
compensation for wrong done to a person or to movable property, if
wrong was done within the local limits of jurisdiction of one court and
defendants resides or carries on business or personally works for gain
within local limits of jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be
instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts.
Illustration (a) to Section 19 is worthwhile. It provides that if "A"
residing in Delhi, beats "B" who is in Calcutta at the time of beating,
"B" can sue "A" either in Calcutta or in Delhi. Illustration (b) is also
valuable to be read. It provides that if "A" is residing in Delhi but he
publishes defamatory statements in Calcutta against "B", in such
situation "B" can sue "A" either in Calcutta or in Delhi. So, in such
circumstances, plaintiff has to sue defendant either at a place where
defendants resides or at a place where cause of action arises/where
defamatory statement is made by defendant against plaintiff.
6. The appellants filed a suit seeking damages on account of a statement
made by defendants/respondents during the course of proceedings in
the court at Delhi which according to the plaintiffs/appellants had the
effect of defaming them. So, the statement which is alleged to have been
made by defendants/respondents and which has the effect of defaming
the appellants, was done in a court during the proceedings at Delhi.
Regarding such statement which is alleged to be a defamatory in nature
and having defamed the appellants, was, however, filed in Srinagar. The
appellants' case is that the effect of such act of defaming them was not
only in Delhi but at Srinagar where they have business office and it is
because of appellants' claim that they have an office in Srinagar, that
Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit regarding the act of
defaming them which would extend to Srinagar courts also. To support
his contention, he relies upon the Judgments State of Meghalaya and
others vs. Jyotsna Dar reported in AIR 1991 Gauhati 96, The State of
Maharashtra vs. Sarvodaya Industries a registered partnership doing
business of Poha at Akola Opponent, reported in AIR 1975 Bombay
197, Jaharlal Pagalia vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1959
Calcutta 273 and Lalit Kumar Arya and another vs. Prabhat Zarda
Factory International reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 7606, (2019)
258 DLT 638: (2019 78 PTC 145. While relying upon those
judgements, he submits that Trial court was wrong in holding that the
court was lacking jurisdiction.
7. Facts of the case are clear. The act, which is alleged, has taken place
during the course of proceedings at Delhi and defendants are also
residing at Delhi against whom it is alleged that their statement had
affected the reputation of the plaintiffs and they have been defamed
because of statement during the proceedings not only in Delhi but in
Srinagar also, because they have an office in Srinagar and that dealers
who were dealing in Srinagar have stopped dealing with them.
However, Section 19 CPC is clear and provisions thereof are
unambiguous. It clearly provides where the suit for compensation/
damages could be filed.
8. The defendants have taken objection about entertaining of the suit at
the very first instance by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC. While going through the provisions contained in Section 19 CPC,
it is clear that a suit of such nature would either be filed in a court where
act complained of has been done or where the defendants reside. It is
specific regarding the same. It is not the case of plaintiffs, appellants
herein, that defamatory statement has been made by defendants in
Srinagar within the jurisdiction of the court before whom the suit was
instituted or the defendants reside within the jurisdiction that court.
9. The provisions of Section 19 C.P.C cannot be extended beyond what is
provided in the said section. It clearly defines the courts where a suit
could be filed. Since the suit has been filed in Srinagar, where neither
defendants reside nor act/complaint in respect of which damages are
sought was committed. Judgments referred to by learned counsel for
the appellants, in the circumstances of the case, are not be applicable.
Thus, arguments of the appellants are accordingly rejected. No ground
is made out to interfere. As a consequence of which, the appeal is
dismissed along with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall
stand vacated. The net result is that order passed by the Trial court is
upheld.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
07.05.2025
"Imtiyaz"
