Sree Senior Homes vs Mr.C. L. Rajendrakumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4516 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sree Senior Homes vs Mr.C. L. Rajendrakumar on 28 February, 2025

Author: K.Natarajan

Bench: K.Natarajan

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2686 OF 2023


BETWEEN:

1.    SREE SENIOR HOMES
      REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
      HAVING ITS OFFICE
      AT NO.S-615,
      MANIPAL CENTRE,47,
      DICKENSON ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 042.

      AND REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,
      MR. H. S. SREENATH AND HIS WIFE
      MRS. GAYATHRI SREENATH

      WHO HAVE ALSO BEEN ARRAYED
      AS 2ND AND 3RD APPELLANTS.


2.    MR. H. S. SREENATH
      S/O. H. SREENIVASA SASTRY,
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT NO. A-2,
      GROUND FLOOR, NO. 7,
      LANGFORD RUSTUMJI APARTMENTS,
      LANGFORD GARDENS,
      BENGALURU - 560 025.


3.    MRS. GAYATHRI SREENATH
      W/O. H. S. SREENATH,
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT NO. A-2,
      GROUND FLOOR, NO.7,
      LANGFORD RUSTUMJI APARTMENTS,
                                  2




        LANGFORD GARDENS,
        BENGALURU - 560 025.

                                                     ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
    SRI. L. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

   MR. C. L. RAJENDRAKUMAR
   G-014, AUTUMN BLOCK,
   BEHIND MEENAKSHI TEMPLE,
   BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
   BENGALURU - 560 076.

   ALSO AT: COTTAGE NO. GCA 2,
   SHARADINDU SENIOR HOMES,
   PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.
   DISTRICT MANDYA,
   KARNATAKA.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE)


        THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:13.04.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN
OS.NO.1339/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL    AND   SESSIONS   JUDGE,     BENGALURU     CITY,   (CCH-62),
ALLOWING IA NO.3 FILED U/O.VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC.



        THIS   MFA   HAVING   BEEN   HEARD   AND   RESERVED     FOR
ORDERS ON 13.02.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                           3




    RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 13.02.2025
    PRONOUNCED ON          : 28.02.2025




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN


                              CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for setting aside

the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Addl. City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-62) on I.A.No.3 in

O.S.No.1339/2022.

2. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel

appeared for the appellants and counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that the

plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant or their representatives from making, writing, publishing

or distributing or issuing any defamatory statements regarding the

plaintiffs and their business and commercial activities of the

Sharadindu project and also mandatory injunction directing him to

tender unconditional apology to the plaintiffs by publishing the

same in newspapers and to remove all the statements made against

the plaintiffs and also pay Rs.50 lakhs as compensation towards the

damages.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant has filed

I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 7(a) & (d) of CPC., seeking rejection

of the suit. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the suit of the

plaintiffs and allowed the application filed by the defendant and the

trial court passed an order as "the plaint of the plaintiffs is hereby

ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs to present the same before

the correct territorial jurisdiction court i.e., Pandavapura, Mandya

District, wherein the defendant resides". Being aggrieved by the

same the plaintiffs/ appellants are before this court.

5. The senior counsel appearing for the appellants has

contended that for all the practical purpose the plaintiffs running the

business at Bangalore, registered the company at Bangalore. The

defendant purchased the old age home in Pandavapura, in the

project of the plaintiff but he has made defamatory statement as

against the plaintiffs in various papers and other colleagues by

sending messages against plaintiff company, thereby the plaintiff

company is affected and damage and loss is caused to the plaintiff

company at Bangalore. Therefore, for all the purpose the

jurisdiction is of court at Bengaluru but not at Pandavapura as held

by the Trial Court. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has

contended that as per the Section 19 and 20 of CPC., the defendant

is staying at Pandavapura in the old age home and he was only sent

a letter to the plaintiff in his email which was opened by him in

Bangalore and paper published in Mandya district, for all the

practical purpose the Mandya Court is having jurisdiction and not

Court at Bangalore. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the

plaint and directed to file the suit at Pandavapura. Therefore,

prayed for dismissing the appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records,

now the points that arises for my consideration are;

1) Whether the court at Bangalore gets jurisdiction to try the case, as the plaintiff company registered and doing business at Bangalore?

2) What order?

8. On perusal of the records, the plaintiff is a company

registered at Bangalore, and it is taken development of projects

constructing the Villas or buildings. Accordingly, they said to be

constructed a old age home at Pandavapuar, Mandya District.

Admittedly, the defendant said to be purchased the old age home

from the plaintiff at Bangalore and now staying at Pandavapura. The

remaining villas left out in the Pandavapura Taluk, where the old

age home is not yet sold by the plaintiff and the defendant said to

be found some defects in constructions or poor construction work

therefore he said to be made a defamatory remarks against the

plaintiff. The same was denied by the plaintiffs. However, whether

the defamatory remark made by the defendant or not? Whether it

attracts the concerned defamatory statement? and whether the

defendant is liable to pay the compensation or tender apology is a

matter of trial. However, now the only point arises for this court is

that whether Bangalore Court having local jurisdiction to try the suit

or the plaintiff has to file the suit at Panavapura Taluk. In this

regard it important to mention provision of Section 19 of CPC.,

relied by the both the counsels as well as the judgments.

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.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the

judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in

O.S.A.Nos.213 to 215 of 2019 in C.S.No.194 of 2019 in the

case of G.I. Retail Private Limited Vs Goomo Orbit Corporate

& Leisure Travels (I) Private Limited and Ors. reported in

(2020) 7 MLJ 305 held at para No.28 and 29 which is as under;

28. Even though the respondents would state that net publication has been made throughout the world and there is no pleading in the plaint that effect has been felt in Chennai and therefore, the suit is not maintainable, it is a fact that the share purchase agreements dated 07.09.2015 and 16.09.2015 were executed at Chennai and shares were purchased by the 3rd defendant only at Chennai from the appellant and the appellant company is at Chennai. Hence, the net statement issued by the 2nd defendant would take effect only in Chennai as the appellant company is having business only in Chennai and no other part of the world, would feel the effect.

29. Further, in paragraph No.13, is has been pleaded as follows:

"The plaintiff states that the misrepresentations and press released regarding the purchase of shares of Hermes by defendant No.2 have caused grave prejudice to the business and huge loss both financial and otherwise to the plaintiff. The statements have already affected credibility of the promoters of the plaintiff. Further, the unjust, unfair and arbitrary acts of defendants have caused the bankers to restrict financial facilities enjoyed by the plaintiff."

The above pleadings certainly are material statements with regard to the effect. In fact, the plaintiff pleaded about restriction of Bank facilities enjoyed by the plaintiff/appellant. What is to be seen is only whether the material fact has been pleaded or not. From the above statements, it is clear that proper pleadings are available in the plaint with regard to "Doctrine of Effect"

felt at Chennai. One cannot expect pleading to his expectation. If more statements are given, in detail, it would be like pleadings in the form of evidence in the plaint. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the "Doctrine of Effect" has been pleaded in the plaint. Moreover, the place where it can have effect is only at Chennai where the plaintiff is having office and carrying on business and where grave prejudice to the plaintiff business and huge loss is sustained.

10. In the above said judgment the Division Bench of

Madras High Court also relied upon the judgment of this court in

P.Lankesh and Another Vs Shivappa case reported in 1994

Crl.L.J. 3510. Where the publication of liable through newspaper is

sufficient to prove that paper was delivered, the postal area over

which the court have jurisdiction and need not to be proved that the

article was read by some particular person.

11. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the

judgment of this court in S.N.Manjunatha Vs Honnamakki

Ramesh case in CRP.No.89/2011.

12. And also relied upon the judgment of High Court of

Delhi in the case of Frank Finn Management Consultants Vs

Subhash Motwani and Ors reported in (2009) ILR 2 Delhi 158.

at para 17 held as under;

17. The wrong within the meaning of Section 19 of the CPC in an action for defamation is done by the publication. The defendants are confusing publication in the sense of printing with publication as in the case of libel. The publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. In this regard also see Aley Ahmed Abdi v. Tribhuvan Nath Seth 1979 All. LJ 542 If the magazine, as aforesaid, has a circulation at Delhi, then it cannot be said that the wrong would not be done to the plaintiff at Delhi and thus the courts at Delhi would have Jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act. A Division Bench in T.N. Seshan v. All India Dravida Munnetira Kazahagam 1996 AlHC 4283(AP) has taken the same view. Even if the test of Section 20 of the CPC were to be applied, even then the cause of action in part at least would accrue in Delhi. A single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in the State of

Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries MANU/MH/0137/1975: AIR1975Bom197 has held that the phrase wrong done in Section 19 would clearly take in not only the initial action complained of but its result and effect also and Section 19 is wide enough to take in those places where the plaintiff actually suffered the loss because of the alleged wrongful act. It was further held that the court within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused or suffered or sustained, would clearly answer the requirements of Section 19 for the purposes of the suits mentioned therein. I respectfully concur with the said view and unless Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would be defeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya and Ors. v. Jyotsna Das AIR 1991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers the effect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relied upon Rashtriya Mahila Kosh v. The Dale View 2007 IV (Delhi) 593 to address the principle of forum non conveniens. With respect, if under the CPC the court has jurisdiction, I find it hard to hold that on the doctrine in international law of forum non conveniens the plaintiff can be non suited. I, therefore, decide issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

13. And also relied upon another case of Delhi High Court

in CS (OS) 139/2019 in the case of Escorts Limited Vs Tejpal

Singh Sisodia, herein this case where the registered office of the

plaintiff was at Allahabad, where the defamatory tweets taken place

at Delhi and suit was filed at Delhi and in the said case at para 34

held as under;

34. In my opinion, wrong by defamation, ordinarily would be done to a natural person, at the place of his residence, where he/she has a reputation and to an artificial person as a corporation/company, at the place of registered office of the corporation/company. In such case, the Court of the place of which a person is residence of or where the corporation/company has its registered office, would be a natural court which would have jurisdiction and in a suit instituted at such place, averment of publication without even a specific plea of 'wrong done' with particulars of the persons in whose esteem the plaintiff has fallen may suffice. However, where a plaintiff in a suit for defamation, chooses to invoke the jurisdiction of an unnatural place i.e. a place of which that person is not a resident of and/or if a corporation/company in which it does not have its registered office, to invoke the jurisdiction of that Court, 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, in whose esteem the plaintiff claims to have fallen and/or the loss or damage suffered.

14. In the said case the very High Court of Delhi has held

that the company where registered and suffered loss of business

would get the territorial jurisdiction to file the suit.

15. In the case of Prerana Sharma & Ors Vs Mahesh

Joshi, the High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, reported

in Crl.P.No.4014/2017 taken similar view, where the Co-ordinate

Bench considered the Section 19 and 20 of CPC. Where the

complaint was filed by the victim before the Hanagal Court, Haveri

District, against the respondent, where the co-ordinate bench held

filing complaint at Hanagal Court, Haveri District, is gets territorial

jurisdiction.

16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the

case, for all the aspects the company of the plaintiff is situated at

Bangalore, business at Bangalore and defendant/respondent

purchased the old age home at Bangalore, and he has given

address of Bangalore and he is now residing at Pandavapura,

Mandya District. Though the different projects were taken by the

plaintiff in the different area but registered office is at Bangalore,

and business at Bangalore, suffers loss and profit at Bangalore and

he use to file income tax returns by showing address of the

Bangalore. Such being the case, for all the practical purpose the

Bangalore Court is the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

17. The contention of the respondent is that the suit is

required to be filed at Pandavapura Court and not at Bangalore

Court. The trial court without appreciating all the documents and

the facts of the case returned the plaint, for proceeding before the

Pandavapura Court. The trial court not followed the procedure under

Order VII Rule 10A of CPC., Therefore, the order under challenge is

liable to be set aside.

18. The trial court at Bangalore is having the jurisdiction to

entertain the suit, therefore the order under challenge liable to be

set aside. Hence, answer the point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the

appellants/plaintiffs. Hence the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

Order of the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of

CPC., is hereby set aside and the suit is restored and

the trial court dispose the matter in accordance with

the law.

Sd/-

(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

SRK CT:SK