Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Shumita Deb vs Mr. Gautam Bhattacharya on 23 November, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6128 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. SHUMITA DEB
W/O MR. JNAN RANJAN DEB
D/O LATE MR. MANNA DEY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.402,
4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
2. MR. JNAN RANJAN DEB
S/O K.R. DEB,
HUSBAND OF MRS.SHUMITA DEB,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.402,
4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI AND
SRI DHARMENDRA CHATUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MR. GAUTAM BHATTACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2
RESIDING AT FLAT 3A, EE 23,
SECTOR-II, SALT LAKE,
KOLKATA-760 091.
2. MS. LAHAMA BHATTACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT 3A, EE 23,
SECTOR-II, SALT LAKE,
KOLKATA-760 091.
3. M/S. DEEP PRAKASHAN
209-A, BIDHAN SARANI,
KOLKATA-700 006,
REPRESENTED BY
MR. SHANKAR MANDAL.
4. KALPANA OFFSET PRIVATE LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 123,
TARICK PRAMANICK ROAD,
KOLKATA-790 015,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. ABP PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 6,
PRAFULLA SARKAR STREET
KOLKATA-790 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
A WING, MATULYA CENTRE,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL (WEST),
MUMBAI-400 013,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR .
3
HAVING OFFICE AT KOLKOTA
SHANTINIKETAN BUILDING,
8 CAMAC STREET, 13TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700 017,
TEL: (033) 44098300,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUMAN K.S., AND
SRI UMESHA R., ADVOCATES FOR R1;
SMT. B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(a) OF
CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2024
(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED IN O.S.NO.985/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE Ld. LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-61), BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 15.11.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the
order dated 31.08.2024 passed on Issue No.5 as affirmative in
coming to the conclusion that the Court has no territorial
jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint to present the
same before the competent Court of law within sixty days in
O.S.No.985/2017 by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the
plaintiffs/appellants is that the suit is filed against the
defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining
defendant Nos.1 to 5 from reprinting, circulating or modifying
and publishing in any manner whatsoever the defamatory, false
and man-aligning content contained in introductory page 54 and
chapter even (7th) of the book page 145 to 154 about late Manna
Dey and published in the book "Tarader Sesh Chitthi" (Star's last
letter) and also sought permanent injunction against defendant
No.6 to air or communicate in any manner any content specified
in infringing book and also mandatory injunction against
defendant Nos.1 to 5 and also direction to furnish true and fair
accounts of the sale and circulation of the infringing Book in
physical and virtual form and anybody acting from making,
publishing, circulating and also direct the defendants to jointly
and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as
compensation and directing defendant No.1 to individually pay a
sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiffs towards damages.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that defendant
No.1 has engaged in a vilifying campaign against the plaintiffs by
publishing an article in Anand Bazar Patrika dated 28.10.2013
and subsequently publishing a chapter in book called "Taradar
Shesh Chitthi". It is also contended that the article written by
defendant No.1 about Manna Dey is false and malicious, more
particularly regarding the private relationship of plaintiffs' and
Manna Dey and the said article has been published to expose
plaintiffs to public hatred and ridicule and the articles which are
published are defamatory in nature.
5. The defendants appeared and filed the written
statement contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties and also the suit is barred by limitation and
also contended that the publication which are made out of right
of freedom of press.
6. The Trial Court having considering the pleadings of
the plaintiffs and the defendants, framed several Issues,
Additional Issues and considered Issue No.5 as preliminary issue
that is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
The counsel for defendant No.1 contended that the Court has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and for the
convenience of the plaintiffs, twisted the cause of action. It is
contended that books are published and circulated at West
Bengal and both the book and article are launched in the book
fair at Kolkata, West Bengal in the month of January 2016 and
the same is also in the Bengali language and book was offered
by the readers within the State of West Bengal and any
purported damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the said
publication, the same is confined to Kolkata, West Bengal, thus,
ought to have filed the suit at West Bengal not in Bengaluru.
Hence, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. On
the other hand, the appellants contend that the book has been
circulated in all parts of India and also in Bengaluru. Therefore,
damage to the plaintiffs' reputation has been caused within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiffs right to
privacy has been infringed within the jurisdiction of this Court.
It is also contended that the plaintiffs have been residents of
Bengaluru since 1994 and infringing book was circulated in
Bengaluru. It is also contended that the right to privacy has
been infringed within the jurisdiction of this Court because the
said book contained personal and private details of Sri Manna
Dey who was legendary singer which has been read by the
people within the jurisdiction of this Court. No doubt, defamatory
contents has been printed and published in Kolkata, West
Bengal, but circulation of the said contents is not only in Kolkata,
but also in the rest of the States of India and moreover, the said
defamatory contents published in the book and newspaper sold
in other places of those Courts in that places can be entertained
the cases of defamatory.
7. The Trial Court taking into note of the pleadings of
respective parties, analysed the material available on record and
comes to the conclusion that it is not in dispute that publication
contents have been published in Bengali language. The
defamatory contents have been published in 'Anand Bazaar
Patrika' and in 'Tarader Shesh Chitthi' book in Kolkata, West
Bengal. The same is also an admitted fact. It is also not in
dispute that the defendants are the permanent residents of
Kolkata and carrying their respective business in the Kolkata,
West Bengal. The Trial Court also taken note of Section 19 of
CPC and extracting the same made an observation that if any
person affected by the wrong done by another person can file
the suit for compensation within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of one Court and comes to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs allege that the cause of action has arisen within the
local jurisdiction of this Court since infringing books were sold in
Bengaluru at the Bengali book stall set up during Durga pooja in
2016 and the said circulation has also been widely in social
media. But the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the
language published in the newspaper and book is in Bengali and
the plaintiffs are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and
the said books have been sold in Bengaluru does not mean that
this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction.
8. The Trial Court also considered the judgment relied
upon by the defendants and also taken note of recent judgment
of the Delhi High Court in the case of ESCORTS LIMITED vs
TEJPAL SINGH SISODIA decided on 08.03.2019 and comes to
the conclusion that the said judgment will comes to the aid of
the defendants and answered preliminary issue as affirmative in
coming to the conclusion that Court has no jurisdiction. Hence,
the present appeal is filed before this Court.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that the appellants are husband and
wife. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though
the books are published in Bengali language in Kolkata, the
same were sold in Bengaluru and the said fact is not in dispute.
The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that this Court
has no territorial jurisdiction. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that when the temporary injunction was
sought and the same was granted and the same was challenged
before this Court and this Court confirmed the same during the
course of trial considering the preliminary issue. The impugned
order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record, is
non-speaking, considers extraneous reasons. The suit is filed
seeking injunctive, declaratory and compensatory relief. The
impugned order was passed without considering Section 19 of
CPC wherein it is held that where a suit is for compensation for a
wrong done to a person if the wrong was done within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendants resides
and carry on business in another Court, the suit may instituted
at the option of the plaintiff in either of said Courts. The reason
given by the Trial Court is contrary to Section 19 of CPC. The
respondents specifically admitted that for the purpose of hearing
on preliminary issue that the defamatory book is being in
circulation in Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of this Court and
the same was recorded by the Trial Court in its order dated
29.07.2024. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
that the language of the defamatory book is immaterial for the
purposes of determining whether harm to the reputation of the
appellants were done within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial
Court. Once it is admitted that the defamatory book was
circulated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court,
language is immaterial since in Bengaluru also Bengalis resides
and read the said book. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that the Court has to read both Section 20 and 20(c) of
CPC and Trial Court has not referred Section 20(c) of CPC while
passing the said order. The counsel would vehemently contend
that when the books are sold and circulated in Bengaluru, the
plaintiffs have received the phone call in Bengaluru and the
same is a matter of right of privacy. Even also the defamatory
statements were found in face book and also interview was
made at Bengaluru. Hence, Sections 19 and 20 of CPC has to be
conjointly read and it is not in dispute that the conversation was
made in Bengaluru.
10. The counsel of the appellants in support of his
arguments relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in CRP
No.89/2011 decided on 22.09.2011 in
MANU/KA/1228/2011 in the case of S N MANJUNATH vs H
B HONNAMAKKI RAMESH HEGDE AND OTHERS and brought
to notice of this Court paragraph 12 wherein discussion was
made with regard to Section 19 of CPC which deals with the
territorial jurisdiction and held that where a suit 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 limit of
the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at
the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
11. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court reported in ILR 1994 KAR 2410 in the case of P
LANKESH vs H SHIVAPPA and brought to notice of this Court
paragraphs 9 and 10 wherein discussion was made that where a
defamatory imputation in any newspaper can be said to have
been published. One of the essential ingredients of the offence
is publication of the defamatory imputation.
12. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
this Court passed in M.F.A.No.4019/2022 decided on
14.07.2023 and this Court while dealing with the jurisdiction
made an observation in paragraphs 32 and 34 holding that under
Section 19 of the CPC such a suit could be instituted either
within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Court where the
defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for
gain. Such a suit could also be instituted within the local limits
of the jurisdiction of a Court where the wrong was done and
though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that suit could
be instituted in a Court where the wrong was done. Referring
this judgment, the counsel would vehemently contend that this
Court already comes to the conclusion that where the wrong is
done, the Court is having jurisdiction.
13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court reported in 1961 SCC ONLINE KAR 1 in the case of
GOKALDAS MELARAM vs BALDEVDAS T CHABRIA and
brought to notice of this Court paragraph 8 wherein discussion
was made that Section 19 is only an extension of Section 20 and
Section 20 of CPC is a residuary section, every suit referred to in
that section has to be instituted either in the Court within whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or
personally works for gain, or the cause of action wholly or in part
arises. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 10 wherein it is held that where the wrong is done to
the person is undoubtedly also a place where the cause of action
arises and detail discussion was made about Section 19 and 20
of CPC in paragraph 14.
14. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported
in (2017) 10 SCC 1 in the case of JUSTICE K S
PUTTASWAMY (RETD) AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS with regard to the privacy is concerned and also
relied upon the judgment reported in (2023) 4 SCC 1 in the
case of KAUSHAL KISHOR vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 82
and 83 with regard to fundamental right under Articles 19 and
21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or
its instrumentalities. In order to decide the issue of territorial
jurisdiction, these two judgments will not come to the aid of the
appellants since issue is restricted with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction not in respect of privacy or fundamental right.
15. The counsel for the respondents would vehemently
contend that in Section 19 and 20 of CPC there is a distinction.
Under Section 19, option not available to file the case in
Bengaluru and the Trial Court rightly taken note of Section 19 of
CPC. The counsel also would vehemently contend that interview
cannot be a ground to invoke jurisdiction even if any such
interview was made in Bengaluru. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that no such wrong was done within the
jurisdiction of this Court since articles and books are published in
Kolkata. The counsel also would vehemently contend that same
is in Bengali language and the appellants ought to have file the
suit where the defendants resides or work for gain. The counsel
also would vehemently contend that theory of maximum injury is
not recognised and also brought to notice of this Court the
averments made in paragraphs 29, 30 and 33 of the plaint. The
counsel would vehemently contend that publication was made in
public domain in West Bengal and both the articles are in Bengali
language and respondent No.5 is also the resident of within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
16. The counsel for the respondents in support of is
arguments relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court
reported in CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No.8120/2020
decided on 06.10.2020 in MANU/GJ/1263/2020 in the case
of SUO MOTU vs YATIN NARENDRA OZA and referring this
judgment, the counsel brought to notice of this Court paragraph
28 wherein discussion was made with regard to the original
utterances, allegations, insinuations and the spoken words in
that regard in the press conference in question were in Gujarati
language. Each language has its own fervour and conveying
intensity about the meaning and intent of the spoken words.
17. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Delhi High Court reported in CS (OS) 139/2020
(MANU/DE/1482/2020) decided on 28.07.2020 in the case
of AJAY PAL SHARMA vs UDAIVEER SINGH and brought to
notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph 13 over the
internet or over a public media platform, where the jurisdiction
of a Court, within whose jurisdiction neither the plaintiff not the
defendant resides, is being sought to be invoked, the plaint has
to necessarily contain specific pleas of wrong done within the
jurisdiction of that Court, by giving particulars of the persons in
that jurisdiction and also discussion was made in paragraph 14.
The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend
that it is not open to the plaintiffs to contend that as the wrong
was also done within the jurisdiction of another Court, they could
sue within such jurisdiction.
18. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Delhi High Court reported in MANU/DE/0928/2019 decided on
08.03.2019 in the case of ESCORTS LIMITED vs TEJPAL
SINGH SISODIA and brought to notice of this Court paragraph
9 wherein discussion was made with regard to territorial
jurisdiction of the Court and IN paragraph 10, referred the
judgment in the case of FRANK FINN MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS vs SUBHASH MOTWANI
MANU/DE/1307/2008 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 17 wherein it is held that the plaintiff therein had its
registered office at Delhi, it was held that the Courts at Delhi had
jurisdiction and also discussed Section 19 of CPC. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 29 wherein also
discussed Section 19 and in paragraphs 33 and 34 so also
paragraph 42 and 45, elaborate discussion was made with
regard to Section 19 of CPC.
19. In reply to the arguments of the counsel for the
respondents, the counsel for the appellants would vehemently
contend that the judgments referred by the respondents' counsel
is in respect of internet communication and that judgments are
not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since wrong was
done in Bengaluru by selling the books and circulating the same
in Bengaluru where the plaintiffs' resides and books are
published and it is not an internet publication. The counsel would
vehemently contend that our own judgment which has been
referred at Sl.No.1 and 2 is very clear that whether it is a civil or
criminal in nature, both have the same yardstick in the case of
defamation. The counsel would vehemently contend that
maximum or minor injury is irrelevant while filing the suit and
the Court has to see whether the Court has territorial
jurisdiction. The counsel would vehemently contend that Section
19 and 20 to be read conjointly.
20. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and considering the material available on
record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court
are:
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error while
answering Issue No.5 as affirmative holding that the
Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and
whether it requires interference?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
21. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also perused the material available on
record and considered the principles laid down in the judgments
referred supra and also considered the relief's sought in the suit
that is both injunctive and declaration as well as for
compensation. It is specifically pleaded that cause of action was
arose in Bengaluru. Having perused the plaint itself it is
specifically stated that when the plaintiff received a copy of book
in Bengaluru by post, defamatory remarks arose when the
infringing books were sold in Bengaluru at Bengali Book Stall set
up during Durga Pooja in the year 2016 and cause of action
continues as infringing book is available for sale through online
e-commerce website in India including Bengaluru and all the
book stores in West Bengal. It is not in dispute that books are
sold in Bengaluru. Respondent also not disputes the same. No
doubt, the books are released in Kolkata, West Bengal but the
fact that when the books are sold in Bengaluru and no doubt, the
same are in Bengali language.
22. It is also important to note that this Court has to
take note of the reason given by the Trial Court while answering
Issue No.5 that the plaintiffs are residing within the jurisdiction
of this Court and the said books have been sold in Bengaluru
does not mean that this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction.
The fact that the Trial Court observed that books have been sold
in Bengaluru but made an observation that no territorial
jurisdiction arises here. The only reason assigned by the Trial
Court in order to comes to such a conclusion that selling of
books in Bengaluru not gives any territorial jurisdiction and also
an observation is made that book was published in the
newspaper and book is in Bengali language. But the fact that
Bengali people also residing in Bengaluru is not in dispute. It is
also the case of the appellants that books are circulating all over
the country but the fact that book is sold in Bengaluru is not in
dispute.
23. This Court would like to refer Sections 19 and 20 of
CPC which reads as follows:
"Section 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.
Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants
reside or cause of action arises. - Subject to the limitations
aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction -
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where
there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily
resides, or carries on business, or personally works
for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than
one, at the time of the commencement of the suit,
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain, provided
that in such case either the leave of the Court is
given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry
on business, or personally works for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
24. Having considered Sections 19 and 20 of CPC as
contended by the appellant's counsel and the proviso is very
clear in Section 19 that where a suit is filed for compensation for
wrong done to the person and if it is 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, it is an option of the
plaintiff to institute a suit either of the said Courts. In the case
on hand, it has to be noted that there is no dispute that books
and articles are released at Kolkata, West Bengal. It is specific
case of the appellants that the books were sold in Bengaluru also
during the Durga Pooja in the year 2016. No doubt, it is the
contention of the respondents' counsel that said books are in
Bengali language. When books were sold in Bengaluru that too
during Durga pooja season, people including Bengalis will attend
who are residing in Bengaluru and having contact with the
appellants since the appellants are residing in Bengaluru since
1994. All these aspects have not been disputed by the
respondents. It is specific case of the appellants that
immediately after selling those books, the people who are
residing in Bengaluru contacted the appellants and brought to
notice of defamatory statements made in the said books and
discussed the issue. Hence, it is clear that wrong was done
within the local jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Section 19 is very
clear in this regard and the suit is filed for the relief of wrong
done to persons. It is the specific case of the appellants that the
articles which have been released and sold in Bengaluru affect
the privacy of the appellants but the Trial Court committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that mere selling of book in
Bengaluru will not cause any injury to the appellants. The
counsel for the appellants also brought to notice of this Court
Section 20 of CPC wherein also the provision says that the suits
to be instituted where defendants resides, cause of action arises
and Section 20(c) of CPC is very clear that if cause of action
wholly or part arises, suit can be instituted where the cause of
action arose.
25. I have already pointed out that in the suit, it is
specifically stated by the appellants that books are sold in
Bengaluru, hence, the cause of action arose in Bengaluru also as
pleaded. The very contention of the respondents that Delhi High
Court distinguished the same. The counsel also submits that
both Sections 19 and 20 of CPC are distinct. But it is an admitted
fact that Section 20 of CPC is the addition to Section 19 of CPC
and both Sections have to be read conjointly. This Court also in
the judgment referred supra by the appellants in CRP
No.89/2011 taken note of similar set of facts and in paragraph
12, it is discussed that Section 19 of CPC which deals with the
territorial jurisdiction and also held that where a suit for
compensation for wrong done to a person 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, it is an option of the
plaintiff to institute a suit either of the said Courts. The counsel
for the appellants also relied upon other judgment of this Court
in the case of P LANKESH referred supra and brought to notice
of this Court paragraphs 9 and 10 wherein also a discussion was
made with regard to publishing and making defamatory
imputation said to have been published. In the case on hand also
it is held that first offence may be committed where it is printed
and published and it gets repeated whenever the newspaper
circulated in other places. It is also very clear that books are
sold in Bengaluru and circulated in Bengaluru wherein Bengali
people also residing. No doubt, the respondents relied upon the
judgment of the Delhi High Court which has been relied upon by
the Trial Court also wherein it is a case of internet material. But,
herein it is a case of publication of book and selling of book and
books are sold in Bengaluru.
26. This Court also in M.F.A.No.4019/2022 referred
supra categorically held that suit could be instituted either within
the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Court where the defendant
resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Such
a suit could also be instituted within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of a Court where the wrong was done and through
there is no dispute with regard to the fact that suit could be
instituted in a Court where the wrong was done, but nothing is
discussed by the Trial Court. The fact that book was sold in
Bengaluru is not in dispute and the same is circulated within the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The counsel for the respondents
also mainly relies upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case
of ESCORTS LIMITED referred supra and brought to notice of
this Court paragraph 9 with regard to the jurisdiction of the
Court. In paragraph 17 also taken note of cause of action arising
in Delhi and publication and damage is at Delhi. Herein, it has be
taken note of the fact that in whose eyes, the appellants have
been defamed and the appellants are entitled to file a suit. It is
not in dispute that the appellants are allegedly defamed in
selling the book in Bengaluru. Hence, the said judgment also
comes to the aid of the appellants that they have got an option
under Section 19 of CPC and the same has been discussed in
paragraph 32 of the said judgment also. Having perused all
these materials, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court
committed an error coming to a conclusion that merely because
book is sold in Bengaluru, jurisdiction does not arise within this
Court and the same is an erroneous approach when the wrong
was done in Bengaluru by selling the books and by circulating
the same in Bengaluru and restricted meaning of Section 19 of
CPC with regard to the jurisdiction to file the suit and fails to
take note of the fact that wrong was done in Bengaluru and also
made an error in making an observation that book was published
in Bengali language.
27. This Court already pointed out that in Bengaluru, the
Bengalis were also living and selling of the books at Bengaluru as
contended by the appellants also disrepute the appellants and
the very contention of the respondents that no wrong was done
in Bengaluru cannot be accepted since books are sold in
Bengaluru that too during Durga Pooja. Having perused the
material on record and also considering the principles laid down
in the judgments referred supra, this Court is of the opinion that
the very reasoning given by the Trial Court is erroneous when
the suit is filed for the injunctive relief as well as damages,
defamation and for compensation, ought to have taken note of
both Sections 19 and 20 of CPC as contended by the counsel for
the appellants. The contention that where the defendants
resides, the appellants ought to have filed the suit therein
cannot be accepted. The other contention of the respondents
that the Court has to take note of the maximum injury and the
same is not the question to decide in the present case that
whether it is a maximum injury or minimum injury and the same
is not a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and the
Court has to take note of public domain in which the book was
sold and also articles were circulated in Bengaluru but the said
fact has not been taken note of by the Trial Court. In the
judgment of Delhi High Court referred supra which is relied by
the respondents' counsel, taken note of internet article and same
can be viewed. But here is a case of books sold in Bengaluru and
the same is not the circulation only on internet and whether it is
a maximum injury or minor injury is immaterial for consideration
of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, there is a force in the
contention of the appellants' counsel that this Court can interfere
with the findings of the Trial Court since the Trial Court
proceeded in an erroneous approach in coming to the conclusion
that it is only in a Bengali language and mere selling of books in
Bengaluru does not create any jurisdiction. Thus, it requires
interference of this Court. Hence, I answer the above point as
affirmative.
Point No.2:
28. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.
The order dated 31.08.2024 passed on Issue No.5 by the
LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set
aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed to consider the
matter on merits by trying the case in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
