[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.Mohandas @ Mohankarimbil vs The Secretary on 21 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:4858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
RFA NO. 191 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2016 IN OS NO.115 OF 2014 OF
III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
-----
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
K.MOHANDAS @ MOHANKARIMBIL,
S/O. LATE KARIMBIL APPU,AGE 57 YEARS,
KARIMBIL HOUSE,JOSEPH ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 032,
KACHERI AMSOM, KARUMBRAKKATTUSSERI DESOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING(GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA), R-665-A WING,SHASTHRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 UNION OF INDIA-
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND
BROADCASTING, (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA),R-6555-A WING,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI -110 001.
2026:KER:4858
RFA NO. 191 OF 2018 -2-
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, CGC
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SHRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:4858
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. No.191 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for damages was dismissed by the trial court. The
plaintiff is in appeal. The defendants in the suit are the Union
of India and the Information and Broadcasting Department.
2. The plaintiff is a Malayalam Film Producer. In the year
2009, he produced a Malayalam feature film "Paribhavam". On
05.03.2009 the Censor Board rejected the application for
censorship. The reason stated for the rejection are asunder :-
".....The Film Contains many scenes and Double-meaning dialogues which are
obscene and vulgar catering to baser instincts. Human sensibilities are offended by
vulgarity, obcentity and depravity. Throughout the film, women are depicted in a
degrading and denigrating fashion. The film, as a whole, fails to provide a clean and
healthy entertainment and it lacks any aesthetic value and standard. Judging from
the point of view of its over all impact and in the light of the contemporary standards
of the country and the people to which the film relates, the film depraves the
morality of the audience and is not suitable for public exhibition. The film is,
therefore, refused a certificate vide objectives of certification 1 (a), (d) and (e) and 2
(vii), 2(vii)(viii) and 2(ix) of Guidelines."
2026:KER:4858
The plaintiff had incurred huge expenses in connection with the
production and release of the movie, and its publicity. News
regarding rejection of the certification appeared in the leading
dailies on the very next day tarnishing the plaintiff's
reputation. The plaintiff approached the revising committee. The
Committee granted certification with minor deletions in few
frames. The film was released on 12.06.2009. The film received
only very poor response. The plaintiff alleges that, consequent
on the negative publicity which had happened due to the conscious
involvement of the defendants they are liable for damages.
Ext.A21 notice dated 12.11.2009 was sent to the defendants
claiming damages. The suit was filed on 07.09.2013.
3. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by
limitation.
4. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
5. The point that arises for determination is,
"Was the trial court right in holding that the suit is barred by limitation?"
6. The Censor Board originally refused certification on
05.03.2009. The news was published in dailies on 06.03.2009. It
is the plaint allegation that the illegal refusal of
2026:KER:4858
certification leading to publication in newspapers, affected the
plaintiff's reputation and also poor acceptance of the movie by
the public on its release. This resulted in damages. Though the
plaintiff sent Ext.A21 notice on 12.11.2009, the suit was filed
only on 07.09.2013. Articles 75 and 76 of the Limitation Act
deals with a claim for compensation on the ground of libel and
slander. The period of limitation provided is one year from the
date on which the libel is published or the words are spoken.
Article 113 is a general provision under the Limitation Act. As
per the Article the period of limitation is three years and it
begins to run from the date on which the right to sue accrues.
Here, the cause of action arose as early as in the year 2009 when
the certification was refused and the news was published in
dailies. The suit filed on 07.09.2013 is thus hopelessly barred
by limitation.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-
plaintiff is that, after the certification was given on
12.06.2009 and after the release of the film, unless the film is
exhibited for a period of three years, the resultant damages
could not be ascertained. Therefore, the cause of action for
2026:KER:4858
damages would arise only after the expiry of three years from
12.06.2009 which expired in the year 2012. The suit filed in the
year 2013 is thus within the period of limitation, it is claimed.
The contention of the appellant has no basis and is without
substance. We have already noticed that the limitation commenced
to run on the refusal of certification by the Board and
publication of the news in the newspaper in the year 2009. We
concur with the trial court in its finding that the suit is
barred by limitation.
There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal fails and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
