Karnataka High Court
Nataraja Sharma vs Lakshmi Ravindra Hebbalkar on 1 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 18.07.2025
Pronounced on : 01.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.213 OF 2025 (IO)
BETWEEN:
NATARAJA SHARMA
S/O SURYANARAYANA RAO H.N.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
ADVOCATE
PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT
ASHWA LAW ASSOCIATES
1ST FLOOR, BHERU MANSION
GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.C.CHETHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . LAKSHMI RAVINDRA HEBBALKAR
W/O RAVINDRA HEBBALKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. G.C.PRAKASH
S/O CHENNAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
701, A4 BLOCK
GANGA APARTMENT, NGV QUARTERS,
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
3 ARCHANA M. S.,
W/O MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT 101, 1ST FLOOR
EVANTHARISTI
JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 070.
4 NISCHAL B.H.,
S/O H.GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT 41, 1ST CROSS
2ND BLOCK, ANJANEYA NAGAR
BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.
5. DAIJIWORLD MEDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
S1, 4/72/2, DAIJIWORLD RESIDENCY
AIRPORT ROAD, BONDEL POST
MANGALURU - 575 008.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
3
F-26, 1ST FLOOR
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
7. NETWORK 18 MEDIA AND
INVESTMENTS LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HAVING OFFICE AT
4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
MISSION ROAD, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 027.
8. WRITEMEN MEDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
TTMC, BMTC BUILDING
4TH FLOOR, YESHWANTPUR CIRCLE
YESHWANTPUR
BENGALURU - 560 022.
09. TV9 KARNATAKA INDIA PVT. LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
CIVIL STATION, NO.13,
RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
10. VIOLET J.PEREIRA,
PROPRIETOR AND EDITOR IN CHIEF,
MANGALORE MEDIA,
1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.6,
4
ESSEL WILCOM BUILDING,
BENDURWELL, MANGALURU - 575 002.
11. ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING
COMPANY PVT LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
1ST FLOOR, 8-2-337/G AND G1, ROAD NO.3,
BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 560 034,
TELENGANA STATE.
12. MANIPAL DIGITAL NETWORK PVT. LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
UDAYAVANI BUILDING,
UDAYAVANI ROAD,
MANIPAL - 576 104,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
13. BHASKAR PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
BISHAMBAR BHAVAN, 18,
CIVIC CENTRE, JABALPUR - 482 002,
MADHYA PRADESH.
14. EXPRESS NETWORK PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
EXPRESS BUILDING, NO.1,
5
QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
15. ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
36, CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP MALLIGE MEDICAL CENTRE,
SIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
16. VRL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
24, 3RD FLOOR, SRI SAIRAM TOWERS,
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
17. BENNETT, COLEMAN AND CO. LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
TIMES OF INDIA BUILDING,
DADABHAI NAOROJI ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 001.
18. SAMYUKTA KARNATAKA,
KANNADA NEWS PAPER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
2ND CROSS, OPP. BISHOP COTTONS,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
6
19. PRINTERS (MYSORE) PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
75, MG ROAD, POST BOX NO.5331,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
20. KASTURI AND SONS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
KASTURI BUILDING, 859 AND 860,
ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI - 600 002.
21. THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR,
NO.1, EXPRESS BUILDING,
CK JAFFER SHARIEF ROAD,
OPP. INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
22. RAVIPATI BROADCASTERS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND EDITOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
10/A, CHANDRAKIRAN BUILDING,
5TH FLOOR, KASTURBA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
23. ARG OUTLIER MEDIA PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
7
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
NBW BUILDING,
WADIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE,
BOMBAY DYEING COMPOUND,
PB WORLD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 025.
24. SARG MEDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
B-1701/1702, RAHEJA ATLANTIS CHS,
GANPATRAO KADAM MARG,
LOWER PAREL,
MUMBAI - 400 013.
25. NEW DELHI TELEVISION NETWORK LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
207, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE III,
NEW DELHI - 110 020.
26. KASTURI NEWS 24 X 7,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
NO.12 AND 12/1, KASTURBA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
27. TWITTER INC NOW X,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
8TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE,
121, DICKENSON ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 042.
28. FACEBOOK,
8
C/O FACEBOOK INDIA ONLINE
SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
UNIT NOS. 1203 AND 1204,
LEVEL 12, BUILDING NO.20, RAHEJA
MINDSPACE, CYBERABAD,
MADHAPUR, HITECH CITY,
HYDERABAD, TELENGANA STATE - 500 081.
29. GOOGLE,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
GOOGLE LLC, UNIT NO.26,
THE EXECUTIVE CENTER LEVEL 8,
DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG,
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
AND ALSO AT
NO.3, RMZ INFINITY,
TOWER E, OLD MADRAS ROAD,
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
30. YOU TUBE,
C/O GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
NO.3, RMZ INFINITY-TOWER 3,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ROHAN TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;
NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-30 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 24.03.2025)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 ON IA NO.7 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE
11(a), CPC, 1908, IN OS NO.7586/2023 PASSED BY THE XXXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.,
9
REJECT THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.7586/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order
dated 13-12-2024 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.7 filed by defendant No.1
under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code in
O.S.No.7586 of 2023 seeking rejection of the plaint.
2. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
Respondents 1 to 4 who are the plaintiffs institute a suit in
O.S.No.7586 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction against the
defendants in the suit and also seeking restraint from making any
statement or any publication that would be defamatory or in effect
10
tarnish the image of the plaintiffs. After issuance of notice, the
present petitioner/defendant No.1 in the said suit files an
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC seeking rejection
of the plaint, on the score that the plaint does not even divulge any
cause of action and what are the statements that are defamatory
are not indicated in the plaint averments. The concerned Court, in
terms of its order dated 13-12-2024, rejects the application on the
score that the plaintiffs have rightly filed the suit for permanent
injunction and the plaint discloses cause of action. It is this order
that has driven the 1st defendant to this Court in the subject
petition.
3. Heard Sri A.C. Chethan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri Rohan Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 4.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that plaintiff No.1 is the Minister for Women
and Child Development, Government of Karnataka and other
plaintiffs are senior officers of the Department. The 1st defendant is
11
the Advocate/petitioner who files a complaint before the Lokayukta
alleging corruption in the Department to the tune of ₹600/- crores
committed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs immediately file a suit for
injunction to stop the defendants from defaming them. The 1st
defendant/petitioner files an application seeking rejection of the
plaint on the ground that it does not divulge any cause of action.
The learned counsel would submit that the complaint and the
complaint allegations filed before the Lokayukta were projected in a
press-conference. Nothing beyond the complaint was spoken. The
plaintiffs will always have a remedy to file a suit for malicious
prosecution in case the Lokayukta holds that the complaint so
registered is false. Reporting the contents of the complaint and the
allegations mentioned therein cannot mean they would become
defamation. The trial, in the civil suit, will be parallel to what the
investigation is being conducted by the Lokayukta. On all these
grounds, the learned counsel submits that plaint must be rejected.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs would vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that free speech under Article 19 of the
12
Constitution does not foreclose civil suits for defamation. A tort of a
malicious prosecution, again, does not foreclose a suit for
defamation. The proceedings before the Lokayukta have no bearing
on maintainability of the suit. The scope of inquiry, in both these
proceedings, are entirely different. The plaint discloses cause of
action and the suit is maintainable. The order of the concerned
Court does not warrant any interference.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join issue to
contend that none of the contentions advanced by the petitioner,
even taking the Court through the plaint averments, borne
consideration at the hands of the concerned Court. Therefore, the
matter must be set aside on that score as well.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The parties to the lis are the complainant/the petitioner,
several officers of the Department of Women and Child
13
Development and the Minister for the Women and Child
Development in the Government of Karnataka, who are plaintiffs 1
to 4. The petitioner/1st defendant lodges a complaint before the
Lokayukta alleging corruption to the tune of ₹600/- crores
committed in the Department in procuring food for Anganawadi
Kendras under the ICDS Scheme and tenders were awarded to a
blacklisted Company. After filing of the complaint, on the same day,
the petitioner comes out of the Lokayukta office, held a press
conference or answers questions of the media. The fact of filing the
complaint and the contents of the complaint were reported by
respondents 5 to 30 or defendants 2 to 27 who are all news and
media Companies. Online request news clippings were circulated by
the news and media outlets. Four days thereafter, plaintiffs 1 to 4
institute the suit in O.S.No.7586 of 2023 seeking permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from publishing anything
defamatory concerning supply of food under the ICDS scheme. The
alleged defamatory content found in the plaint is as follows:
".... .... ....
(B) Defamatory content against the Plaintiffs
14
19) On 17th November 2023, the 1st Defendant held a press
conference in front of the Lokayukta office, Bengaluru. At
the press conference, the 1st Defendant falsely alleged
that the Plaintiffs were involved in a 600 crore scam as
they had allegedly awarded tenders for supplying food to
Anganwadis to ineligible entities. The transcript and the
CD of the false and defamatory statements made by the
Plaintiff are produced as Document No.1 & 2 of the
plaint. These false and defamatory accusations made by
the 1st Defendant before the Lokayukta office are being
broadcasted and publicized by the other Defendants from
17th November 2023. All these false and defamatory
statements have caused irreparable reputational injury
and losses to the Plaintiffs.
20) In view of the above, the present suit has been filed
seeking judgment and decree restraining the Defendants,
their agents, servants or any person claiming through or
under them either jointly or severally from telecasting or
publishing any discussion, news item or any other
television programme whatsoever which defames or is
calculated to defame the Plaintiffs or persons connected
with the Plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever. Further, the
Plaintiff is also seeking mandatory injunction directing the
Defendants to publish an unconditional apology for the
false and defamatory statements made on 17th
November 2023 and published against the Plaintiffs in
relation to the implementation of the Integrated Child
Development Services Scheme ('ICDS Scheme') to
provide nutritious, food to children. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs are also seeking mandatory injunction directing
the Defendants to take down all the defamatory content
aired/ published against the Plaintiffs in relation to supply
of food to the Anganwadi Centres under the ICDS
Scheme."
The reminder of the plaint justifies ICDS scheme. The effect of the
statement made by the petitioner that is projected is follows:
".... .... ....
15
35) These allegations have lowered the reputation of the
Plaintiffs in the eyes of the general public. Several
persons known to the Plaintiffs enquired about the
veracity of the false allegations made by the Defendants.
This caused severe trauma and mental duress to the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs who have been appreciated by the
members of the public are now looked down upon by the
same people as a result of the false and defamatory
statements made by the Defendants.
36) The Plaintiffs submit that after viewing the programme,
the members of the public have started speaking ill of the
Plaintiffs. The publication has caused prejudice in the
minds of people despite the fact that the contents of the
publication being completely false. This prejudice is based
on the false, baseless and derogatory statements made
by the Defendants. The Defendants are aware that the
Plaintiffs do not have access to the same media coverage
to bring out the truth before the members of the general
public.
37) The Plaintiffs also want to point out that, prior to
making/publishing such false and scandalous allegations,
no efforts were made to ascertain the facts from the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that owing to such
publication that is now made, the Defendants have
created a wrong public opinion and have placed further
roadblocks in implementation of the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Defendants are
deliberately peddling falsehood against the Plaintiffs and
targeting them in their personal capacity in order to
impede the implementation of the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.3522
of 2022."
The cause of action stated is as follows:
".... .... ....
39) Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose
on 17/11/2023, on 18/11/2023 when various defamatory
statements were published by the Defendants against the
16
Plaintiffs. It is submitted that the effect of the defamatory
statements made continue even as on this date."
The prayer sought is as follows:
"a. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their
agents, anchors, news readers, correspondents,
employees, servants or any person claiming through or
under them, subsidiaries, parent company or any related
entities, either jointly or severally from transmitting,
broad casting, publishing, distributing, sharing or
webhosting in any print, electronic or other medium any
statement or other content whatsoever which defames or
is calculated to defame the Plaintiffs in relation to supply
of food under the ICDS Scheme pursuant to the directions
of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition
No. 3522 of 2022;
b. Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to publish
an unconditional apology for the defamatory statements
made and to unconditionally withdraw all such
defamatory statements;
c. Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to take
down all defamatory statements transmitted,
broadcasted, published, distributed, shared, web-hosted.
in any print, electronic or other medium made against the
Plaintiffs in relation to supply of food under the ICDS
Scheme;"
Permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendants from
transmitting and broadcasting any material concerning ICDS
scheme and mandatory injunction is sought to direct the defendants
to take down all defamatory statements transmitted, broadcasted
and published.
17
9. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner files an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint
on the score that it runs counter to Article 19(2) of the Constitution
of India and the citizens of the State are entitled to know what is
happening in the Government. The affidavit in support of the
application reads as follows:
"AFFIDAVIT
I, S.Nataraj Sharma, s/o Suryanarayana Rao H.Ν., aged
about 47 years, Advocate having office at No.7, 1st floor, Bheru
Mansion, Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-
560004 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the first defendant in the above
case and as such I am aware of the facts of the case.
2. I submit that the plaint prayers are for an injunction to
restrain me from making any statement regarding supply of
food under ICDS Scheme and for mandatory injunctions for my
apology and to take back statements made by me before the
media regarding supply of food under ICDS Scheme.
3. I submit that the prayers are vague and general and
do not show any cause of action. The prayers cannot be granted
by law. My future speech is also sought to be restrained by
injunction.
4. I submit that I made a complaint before the Lokayukta
and I spoke about the complaint to the media. The complaint
copy is produced along with my written statement. I submit that
it is my right and responsibility as an Advocate and public-
spirited citizen to file a complaint if I come to know about high
level corruption in this case about 600 Crores of Rupees. It is
the duty of the media to inform the public regarding filing of
such a complaint.
18
5. I submit that filing of a complaint and speaking about
it is not defamation. The lokayukta probe will decide whether
the allegations are true or false. If the allegations are false the
plaintiffs can file a suit against me for damages on the ground of
malicious prosecution and they may also take recourse to
sections 182 and 211 of the IPC, 1860.
6. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no cause of
action to file a suit against media houses and myself. since only
the complaint allegations are being reported. Since there is no
defamation there cannot be an injunction against defamation.
The allegations have to be probed by the lokayukta.
Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be
pleased to reject the plaint by allowing the accompanying
application in the interests of justice and equity."
The concerned Court, by the impugned order, rejects the
application on the following reasons:
".... .... ....
REASONS
7. Point No.1 :- It is well settled law that at the time of
rejection of the plaint, only the plaint averments and the
document filed with the plaint are to be considered. I have
examined the plaint, documents filed with the plaint, the plaint
allegations reveal that the plaintiffs are the minister of Women
and Child Development, Government of Karnataka and the
Secretary of Department of Women and Child Development in
Government of Karnataka and plaintiff No.3 is also Director of
the Women and Child Development in Government of
Karnataka, plaintiff No.4 is working on special duty in the said
department. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant being
Advocate making false and baseless allegations against the
plaintiffs and making statement before various electronic, print
and digital media. The plaintiffs have produced document No.3
which is the article published in the portal of defendant No.2.
19
Several viewers have submitted their comments on the article.
There are numbers of comments tarnishing the image of
plaintiffs before the enquiry is conducted and concluded.
8. In other media houses websites, there are news
articles circulating that 1st plaintiff faces the complaint for
Anganawadi food irregularities. The video clippings also
produced by the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant has not stated only
about the complaint filed before the Lokayuktha, several other
information regarding the plaintiffs also disclosed. If the media
briefing is restricted only to the complaint lodged by 1st
defendant against the plaintiffs before Lokayuktha, then it can
be safely inferred that there is no cause of action for filing this
suit. But, the C.D. produced along with the plaint reveals that
there are other facts are also briefed by the 1st defendant to
media houses. Therefore, there is a clear cause of action for the
plaintiffs to file the suit before this court for mandatory
injunction and permanent injunction.
9. Learned counsel for the 1st defendant relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajanath Khosla V/s.
Acharya Dr. John R. Biswas & others. In the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court discussed about the word 'defamation'
and held that unless the competent authority took the
cognizance and filing of the complaint before the competent
authority does not amounts to defamation.
10. In the 2nd judgment relied by the 1st defendant, the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in Mahadev I. Todale V/s Frankfinn
Aviation Services private limited is also in respect of suit for
defamation and damages. According to the 1st defendant, if the
Lokayuktha concludes the enquiry and complaint holding that it
is false, then only the cause of action arises for the plaintiff to
file this suit. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in MFA.8528/2022. It is in respect of suit for
damages. His contention is that the cause of action arose only
after the investigation was completed and before the
investigation is completed this suit is filed, therefore it is
premature one.
11. In another decision also, freedom of speech and press
emphasized. But, these decisions are not applicable because in
media briefing the 1st defendant not only stating about the
20
complaint filed against the plaintiff. He made certain other
allegations against the plaintiffs, without filing complaint
regarding other allegations. Therefore, these decisions are not
helpful for the 1st defendant.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon. ILR
2005(1) Delhi 34 in case of Ashok Ghosh V/s. Urmi A. Goswami.
It is in respect of freedom of speech and expression. Wherein,
Hon'ble Delhi Court held that there are certain restrictions under
Article 19(2) of Constitution of India. The other decisions are
also in respect of the defamation and freedom of speech, etc.,
The facts involved in this case demonstrates that the 1st
defendant apart from stating about the complaint stated several
other things against the 1st plaintiff and others. Therefore, the
plaintiffs have rightly filed suit for permanent injunction and
mandatory injunction. The plaint discloses the cause of action,
therefore answer point No.1 in negative.
13. Point No.2:- In view of my answer to the above
point, I pass the following:-
ORDER
I.A.No.7 filed by the defendant No.1 under
Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC is dismissed."
10. The issue now is, whether the plaint averments did
disclose cause of action for instituting the plaint?
11. A perusal at the plaint would indicate that there is no
averment with regard to specific statements made by the petitioner
which are defamatory in nature. The plaint refers to a CD in which
the video of a press conference held by the 1st defendant wherein it
is stated that the petitioner has stated certain additional
defamatory contents apart from what is stated in the plaint. The
additional allegations are not culled out in the plaint. The plaint
averments are in entirety justify the scheme, with some vague
statements of it being defamatory. All these factors ought to have
been borne consideration by the concerned Court while answering
the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, though it is settled
principle of law that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
need not be answered on the strength of the written statement or
on the strength of the affidavit filed in support of the application,
but purely on plaint averments. Even on plaint averments, as noted
hereinabove, the plaint is absolutely vague. This factor is not borne
consideration at the hands of the concerned Court.
12. Several factors that are projected before this Court on
pleadings have not been noticed by the Court. In that light, I deem
it appropriate to remit the matter back to the concerned Court to
consider the application on the strength of the pleading that is
already in place, in accordance with law and pass necessary orders
thereon. Plethora of judgments are relied on by both the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In the light of the
matter being remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court,
both the learned counsel would place the same before the
concerned Court and it is needless to observe that the concerned
Court will consider all the averments and pass necessary orders in
accordance with law.
13. For the aforesaid reasons the following:
ORDER
(i) Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 13-12-2024 passed by the XXXV
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on
I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.7586 of 2023 stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to
answer the application afresh, within an outer limit of 3
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) All contentions of both the parties except the one
considered in the case at hand, shall remain open to be
urged before the concerned Court.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
CT:MJ
