Telangana High Court
Ramesh Chandra Soni vs Mukunddas Soni on 2 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
C.M.A.No.451 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2023
passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad in I.A.No.522 of 2022 in O.S.No.185 of 2022.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the
defendant in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are
referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that
the plaintiff filed I.A.No.522 of 2022 against the defendant seeking
to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendant or any other
person claiming under him or his servants from making and
publishing defamatory and libelous allegations against the plaintiff
and his family members pending disposal of the main suit.
3.1. It is averred in the affidavit that originally Shri
Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan was established by the father of
the plaintiffs i.e., Satyanarayana Soni. He died on 16.02.2017 due
to ill-health. There are series of litigations between the plaintiff and
LNA, J
the defendant with regard to properties and about said
Satyanarayana Soni Seva Samithi Charitable Trust. It was averred
that in the third week of May, 2009, the defendant managed to take
Satyanarayna Soni Seva Sansthan and since then it is in their
control. The defendant also gave a report to Police against plaintiff
and after thorough investigation, Police have filed final report.
Being aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed a private complaint in
C.C.No.722/2012 and the same ended in acquittal after full trial.
Subsequently, the defendant issued a paper publication on
27.05.2017 in Hindi Milap Newspaper, contents of which are
defamatory to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit claiming damages for
defamation and the present interlocutory application seeking the
interim relief.
4. The defendant filed counter opposing the petition on merits
and on law. It was averred that initially, the plaintiff gave
publication in daily Hindi Milap Newspaper on 24.05.2017, to
which they issued reply in the same newspaper on 27.05.2017.
Again on 03.06.2017, the plaintiff again made another publication
in the same newspaper, for which the defendant was compelled to
give reply by way of publication on 06.06.2017 and except these
LNA, J
two publications, which are intended to give reply to the earlier
publications made by plaintiff, no defamatory statements were ever
made by the defendant. The defendant did not make any such
allegation defaming the plaintiff in the society and as such, prayed
to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the submissions made by both the parties, the
trial Court observed that the contents of the counters, which as per
the plaintiff are defamatory to him, are filed in reply to the
allegations made by the plaintiff in the different suits instituted by
him and therefore, the same does not amount to defamation. The
defendant is entitled to put forth his defence and prove his case. It
was further observed that except filing counters as defence in the
suits filed by the plaintiff, no other material was placed to prove
that the defendant is continuing in making defamatory statements
against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the
plaintiff could not make out prima facie case and dismissed the
interlocutory application. Hence, the present appeal.
LNA, J
6. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Though notice is served upon the respondent, none appeared on his
behalf.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of
India 1, John Thomas Vs. Dr. K.Jagadeesan 2 and the judgments of
the High Court of Delhi in Smriti Zubin Irani Vs. Pawan Khera
and others 3 and Sanjay Mishra Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and
another 4 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Smt
Madhuri Kukund Chitnis Vs. Mukund Martand Chitni and
another 5 and the judgment of the High Court of Punjab-Haryana in
Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 6.
8. The facts and circumstances of the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellant are different from that of the
present case and therefore, they have no application to the facts of
the present case and will not help the case of the appellant.
(2016) 7 SCC 221
AIR 2001 SC 2651
2022 SCC Onlline Del 2310
(2012) 189 DLT 196
1990 Cri L J 2084
6 1961CRILJ710
LNA, J
9. The aforesaid judgments cited by learned counsel for the
appellant pertains to cases where purported defamation statements
were made against an individual and were defended on the ground
of freedom of speech under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of
India. However, in the present case, initially, public notice was
issued by the appellant in print media and in response to the same,
reply public notices were issued by the respondent, against which
proceedings were initiated for defamation. Therefore, the same
cannot be equated to statements/publications made with an
intention to defame the reputation of the appellant.
10. Further, the contention of the appellant that the statements
of respondent are per se defamatory in nature or whether the same
comes under within the Exception-9 to Section 499 IPC can only
be adjudicated after full-fledged trial and at this stage, the same
cannot be termed as defamatory statements intended to defame the
appellant.
11. As such, in considered opinion of this Court, the appellant
failed to make out prima facie case for grant of interim orders.
LNA, J
12. It is relevant to mention that in the impugned order, the trial
court specifically recorded that except filing counters and written
statements by the respondent in the legal proceedings initiated by
the appellant, no other material is placed by the appellant to prove
that the respondent is continuing in making defamatory statement
against the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court has further observed
that the contents of counters/written statements of respondent in
reply to the allegations made by the appellant does not come under
the definition of "defamation" and it is settled law that both parties
shall be allowed to defend their case and that, a party cannot be
restricted by the other party from defending its case or suggest
other party as to what defence can be raised by it in defence. The
allegations and counter allegations are to be proved during the
course of trial and the suit is pending adjudication.
13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that at this stage, injunction cannot be granted
against the respondent since the imputations/allegations attributed
to the respondent are not yet proved or adjudicated to be
defamatory in nature.
LNA, J
14. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly,
dismissed. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made by
this Court in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of the
Appeal. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations
made by this Court in this order while disposing the suit.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Dated:02.04.2024
dr
