Madras High Court
News Nation Network Pvt Ltd vs Mahendra Singh Dhoni on 9 May, 2025
Rev.A.No.8 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.05.2025
CORAM
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Review A.No.8 of 2024
in
A. No.2714 of 2022
in
C.S.No.185 of 2014
News Nation Network Pvt Ltd
Rep.by Senior Editor Punith Sarkar,
(News Nation Channel)
Plot No.14, Sector 126,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh -201 301. ... Applicant/4th Defendant
..Vs.
1.Mahendra Singh Dhoni
2.Zee Media Corporation Limited
(Zee New Corporation)
Essel Studio, FC-19, Sector 16A,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301.
Also at
Alpha Centre, Essel House,
3rd Floor, No.150 & 151,
North Usman Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai- 600 017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
Rev.A.No.8 of 2024
3.Mr.Sudhir Chaudhary
Editor and Business Head of Zee News Channel,
Zee Media Corporation,
Essel Studio, FC-19, Sector 16A,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301.
Also at
Alpha Centre, Essel House,
3rd Floor, No.150 & 151,
North Usman Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai- 600 017.
4.G.Sampath Kumar IPS
C/o.Office of Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004. ...Respondent/Defendants
Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of
O.S. Rules read with Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to review the order
dated 15/07/2022 passed by this Honble Court in A.No.2714 of 2022 in
C.S.No.185 of 2014.
For Applicant : Mr. Aman Jha
For Respondents : Mr.P.R. Raman Sr. Counsel for Plaintiff
: M/s.King & Partridge for D1
: Mr. Muizz Ali for D2
: Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj for D3
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
Rev.A.No.8 of 2024
ORDER
This Review Application is filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of
O.S. Rules read with Section 114 of C.P.C., praying to review the order
dated 15/07/2022 passed by this Honble Court in A.No.2714 of 2022 in
C.S.No.185 of 2014.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that while the application No.2714 of 2022 was taken up for hearing on
15.07.2024, then Counsel, without any instruction from the Applicant
gave the no-objection, pursuant to which this Hon'ble Court granted
leave to the plaintiff to deliver the interrogatories and issuance of
subpoena to the Applicant herein. The Applicant should not suffer for
any act of inadvertence by the previous Counsel.
3. It has been further submitted that the main ground for review
of the impugned order is that the then Counsel for the Applicant/4 th
Defendant gave no objection to the allowance of the interrogatories
application filed by the Plaintiff herein. Neither the Authorized
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
Representative nor the offices of the Applicant/4th Defendant were
informed about the Interrogatory proceedings and neither were
Applicant's instruction ever sought by the said counsel before making
this submission at the bar in Application No. 2714 of 2022.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant further
submitted that the Applicant was shocked and surprised to know about
the aforesaid no objection by the then Counsel. Hence, the Applicant
herein engaged me as the new Counsel and preferred a Review
Application under Section 114 of the CPC. However, the same was never
cleared by the Registry inspite of removal of defects. This constrained
the Applicant herein to prefer an OSA SR No. 123557/2023, wherein this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 07.08.2024, observed that Review
Application was the appropriate remedy and dismissed the aforesaid
OSA.
5. It has been further submitted that the Applicant/4th
Defendant has good case on merits against the said Application seeking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
deliverance of interrogatories by the Plaintiff as the said Application is
an abusive of process of law and was filed with the sole motive of
prolonging the trial. Hence, any order/judgment passed against the other
Defendants in any Application for Delivery of Interrogatory, would have
no bearing to the instant case of the Applicants as nature of questionnaire
to each Defendant to the suit are different and each such Application is to
be decided on its own merits hence the Applicant's case in not covered by
any such orders passed qua other Defendants.
6.It has been further submitted that the Applicant has a good
case on merits and thus be given an opportunity to file reply to the said
Application No. 2714/2022 filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein as
the Application for Interrogatory cannot be filed after framing of Issues.
It is trite law that the very object to Interrogatory is to
minimize/crystallize the dispute between the parties and concomitantly
facilitate in the framing of issues. In other words, the interrogatories are a
way of discovery applied for the purpose of narrowing down issues
between the parties. Thus, when the Hon'ble Court frames issues under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, one of the materials which are
to be relied upon by this Court are the answers to interrogatories
delivered in the suit. Reference is made to the relevant portion of Order
XIV is as follows:
ORDER XIV
Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on
Issues agreed upon
3. Materials from which issues may be framed. — The Court
may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:—
(a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons
present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties;
(b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to
interrogatories delivered in the suit;
(c) the contents of documents produced by either party.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that
the Application for delivery of Interrogatory has been filed with the sole
objective to delay the Trial while the Plaintiff has sought adjournments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
on 7 different dated within a span of about 1.5 years. In support of his
arguments, he relied upon the Judgments in the case of “Himalayan
Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh and Ors, reported in
(2015) 7 SCC 373, “Prafulla Kumar Dash .Vs. Jagannath Das”, and
Sandeep Grover vs Priyanka Batra. Hence, he prays to allow the
application as prayed therein.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this
Court passed the said order after hearing other side submissions. Review
is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the
order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
Further, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed OSA No.50 of 2023
and CMP No.4661 of 2023 filed by Zee Media Corporation Ltd seeking
the prayer on the same ground. Therefore, no merits in this application
and it is abuse of process of Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
aforesaid application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
9. Heard both sides and perused the material available on
record.
10 The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that
the previous counsel had made submissions without getting instruction
from the applicant. It is not a valid ground to review the said application.
Further, in the instant case, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, has not pointed out any mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record.
11. The Division Bench of this Court made in OSA No.50 of
2023 relied upon by the respondents, wherein it is observed as follows:
“15. Insofar as the maintainability of the application under Order
XI Rule 7 before the learned Judge is concerned, the decision of the
learned Judge has to be understood in the scheme of Rule 7, which
permits an adversary to take out an application to strike out the
interrogatory, if it is unreasonable, vexatious or are prolix, oppressive,
unnecessary or scandalous. The learned Judge in para 18 of the Order has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
clearly considered the scope of Rule 7 and then, held that the application
is not maintainable as no ground as permissible under Rule 7 is made
out.”
12. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Division
Bench of this Court, this review application is not at all maintainable.
13. In the result, the Review application stands dismissed. No
csots.
09.05.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
Lbm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J
Lbm
in
in
09.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:03:15 pm )
