Karnataka High Court
K B Ganapathi vs Dr K Ullas Karanth on 21 February, 2009
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 215"" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2Oo9
BEFORE"
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE c.R. KUMARASDIAMY1-L--1: --'--
MISCELEANEQUS FIRST APPEAL No.Ip314 Q '~~ ''
BETWEEN:
1. K B GANAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
EDITOR & PUBLISHER
STAR MYSORE AND . _
MYSORE MITRA NEWSRARERS .
No.375, 4"' ESTATE, 8"' CROSS * .
9"' MAIN, K.C.LAYOUT, MYSORE f '
2. c P CHINNAPPA :1,
AGED AE!vO{;FT--.53j.YEAi?ifS- _
PRINTER, MYSGRE NITHRA
AND STAR OF' MYSOR-E I "
No.15, c 'D E I INDUSTR_IA:__A'»LAYOUT
BANNIMANTAP-, MYSORE ~.«s*:o 015
3. M/S A.CAD_EMY NEWSPAPERS (P) LTD.
. _ NO.1»»Z':~; c 3: E 1 IND'U$.T_RIAL A LAYOUT
'*vSA~'NIMA'NTA9, MYSORE -- 570 015
REPRESENTED By ITS DIRECTOR
-,1. Hs'Mu,RALI«DHARA"
AGED'=ADOu'I 3 2, SYEARS
A REPORTER-,~.STjAR OF MYSORE
. AND MYSDORU MITHRA
'VDRAHMINS STREET, HDNSUR -- 571 105
{R D M"'ARANTESHA
I AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
--.f.--RE?oRTER, STAR OF MYSORE
_ AND MYSOORU MITHRA
'OPPOSITE PRIVATE BUS STAND
V,
MADIKERI --- 571 201
rm. M R SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT EDITOR
MYSOORU MITHRA
NO.15, C 8: E I INDUSTRIAL A LAYOUT . V' --. p " _
M'/SORE - 570 015 A .;_,AP_.PEL'LANTS..'
(BY SRIYUTHS: S N BHAT, PARI:<SH1T=S SQADVVOCATES; _ ~
AND:
DR K ULLAS KARANTH
MAJOR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O DR. K. SHIVARAM RARAN*F'H~~..A_
DIRECTOR I _ --
CENTRE FOR WILD LIFE STUDIES
NO.823, 13*" CROSS, E
JAYANAGAR 7"' BLOCKWEST ' _ ' '
BANGALORE ' g A '-..;:P..ESPONDENT
(BY SRI: UDAYA »H'OL'L'Ai SE-N'IOR.COu4a.!SEL FOR
M/S: HOLLA &..!-:fQLLA., AD'vOCATES)§
THIS MISC*ELL..ANEOUS !?IVRHS_T"APPEAL Is FILED UNDER ORDER
43 RULE 1{r) OF-CODE VOF."C'I\.'IiL".»AP}2OCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 4.7.2005 PASS-ED' ON I.A. IN O.S.NO.6543/04 ON THE FILE OF
Ta¥i'E'xxx A-ODL;'~.CI"n( CIVILEUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE I.A.
FILEDUNDER"OR'D.E'R.__3§. RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
_CODE OFCIVIL RR()'§iE1DURE FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
MSCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
".1:-iE4AR'IvNG_b_B"EF0RE THE COURT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
' ' ".'jEO__LLO\N.1NG:--
9/I
J U D G M E N T
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure against th,eVi()i_'rd_er dated 4.7.2005 passed on LA. in 0.5.no.6543_;?_:fi4"'OVn:
file of the xxx Add}. City Civil Judge.aang_ai--e.r.e,.. :.a'a~Ifo~..»yin_:g » the LA. Filed under Order 39 Ruiie Section 151 of Code of Civi!»i'§?_roce'd.ure fori't:e.:1fipolrary_:ti» injunction.
2. In this judgment,he..Lr"eferred to with reference to the statues be::fore_:'t=heVAt~r'i_a_lu (iourt.
3. The*_pia_intiffi~V..hats»,fi'ie:d_.an application for grant of injunction in th'e.ttr'ia:| :Court.-":In support of the application, l_1.«e'~has to anlaff-idavit stating as under:
I pfi'rVst.,V.iV_de'fve:ndant is the editor and publisher of V'VV..AA'"Vi3n9|ish'daiify' rsietvspaper 'Star of Mysore' and Kannada Mysooriu Mithra'. These papers are printed by the 'defendant and the third defendant is the owner of said Newspaper. The fourth and the fifth defendants ?/ are the reporters of both the Newspapers and the sixth defendant is the Assistant Editor of the Newspaper Mysooru Mithra. The Newspaper 'Star of My4s.or.e"~.._is published from Mysore and has circulation _ State, including Bangalore.
He further states that one the Deputy Conservator of Foressts,.ohas the it defendants with the malafuide ,in'te:ntio'n.._ of defadéing the plaintiff and she has qiuoted---.fi'exte:ntSi§4ei_y in various articles", which are lpublislitedgildiy t-he~'.o'efenf<:iants. The pl:a_in"ti_ff sta~tfesVthV_ai't. is the Scientific Advisor of the Non--Govern«n1ent{)rg_a'n-isation, 'Wildlife First'. Some o.f<t._he of"t'he.....Forest Department and also the mwiir.-.ingV'cor_np:anVi'es' ---were suppressing the truth about the it"e._.forest.'fire«s in'.V'v'iil_a.t_i]araho|e and conniving at denuding of iflgihmbers iiinthievforest. The conservation groups had to 'i._"app~r_'cacifi«~..the i-ion'ble Supreme Court of India in order to ".'jp_Ifeiiien.t denuding of trees in the forest. It is because of hefL"--e.th'e.ovrders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India V. 5 in a writ petition that the cutting of timber in the forest was stopped.
The plaintiff also states that various acts of omission and commissi_on_"'---hadf been questioned by the associates of under threat of disciplinary action. f'Fd.re'st'*ap Department officials are in the of repefaté-div: leaking false stories about the vplaé_intiff"'_a:*z'd_ other conservation activists.
The most of the articles published inéthe to defame him. In an article published in Mithra' dated 3.7.2004, the defenda'n';t.sE>___haye lf'a'ise.!.\,r«' published statements that the Hon'ble"Ju_cii.ci'al"vibila-gistrate's Court in Mudigere had issued arias": warras-i't against him and his associates for pjifpegfilegai enftl.-.y'*i:_nto the forest for conducting research. The 5_"alAlegatio"n,that an arrest warrant had been issued against is; totally false and baseless. The defendants, with malafide intention of spoiling his fair name and Q/.
He also states that in another article published in 'Mysooru Mithra' on 5.7.2004, the defendants 'have proclaimed in headlines 'Bones worth crores of".Hru.'peés were missing from the Predator Centre in Naga:raho:l:e-if V' then raises a suspicion that, under conducting research, someone has caom"n_1i'tted"the.,h.ein'ous~._ crime of smuggling wild lioness,'-.;d'..Tf'oreign'V countries. These statements cleraril-\;},_:'create an'-impression in the minds of the re'ao'gers..,.i¥'tl:'|at:'lathe'agplaintiff has established his Nzaxgarahole under the guise ofco'ndlu'lo'ti--ng'~res,ea»r_ch and that he had collected wild animal bones for r'e.sea'r--r;lhJand other purposes. :_.«~'"~,_Th:;=§_j}*~p,lain.tiff 'aIso----«*states that in another article pu.b--!i'sl1e:ciw,,in,;"§.t'a.rof Mysore' on 10.7.2004, it is stated .'uW.__t.l3at the»"'i'nve.sti'gai:ion had revealed that he had managed get a Range Forest Officer's post to his 'Driver', one Kumar, and then got him posted to 0'00-til'-=la'gara;ho|e, during which period the bones were V'-flvttrainsported. Sri.N.Ravindra Kumar mentioned in the 1/ South Africa, spoke to Dr.Raju over phone this morning and pleaded his inability to appear before him today'. This statement is totally cooked-up by the defend»ant_s. The plaintiff also states that he was not at Africa on the said date and that he did not_--te»l.e"phonically' speak or plead with the said defendants have concocted thefs-t_ory to lend their false claims of having 'scandal' concerning him through tvitfiiiyr in'yestVi"ga_ti_onys. He also states' defendants published 'anothe'r."_.art.icIeVl_""-i,n--'.Star of Mysore' boldly headlined '!_(ar.anth' iladiylnbu"'pVe'rn1ission: DEF'. The article then goe'f5"o_n to "a_ttr1ibuV'nte a statement to the Deputy Co_nserva"tor"".iofForests, Dr.R.Raju,. that the plaintiff was condirctitigx in Nagarahole without valid 7rpermissi"o.n. .._frtla«:""plaintiff also states that the derogatory was pllblished by the defendants deliberately to the readers about his bonafides, by falsely E'/"
10 attributing statements to DCF, Hunsur, in order to support the false report published by the defendants. .y He also states that on 22.7.2004, the defe'*nVci«a_iits again published an article in 'Mysooru Mithra' ~ with the title 'Enquiry begins on Ullas ,Karanth''s'jv;'e'se'a.rc'hV 22" scandals: money flowing front.' f_oi~'eign._couiitr.i"é.s: swallowed'. These allegatio'ns"'~-.,pf they def'enol_an.t.s--~iarefl' totally false and defamatory. __'.lTh'e._publicatio'n these false reports have also brouight'--i_nto, diisyieyptite the years of research that he and hisA"or'gVajnisa."tion's been doing for the ca%.;se_ .ei'7'teVn.nseree'tiipii. of the diminishing Tiger population in Sta.te';.y" .
state's«i.t..t-at on 4.8.2004, the defendants pui2lyis.~hied----artic|e in 'Mysooru Mithra' titled 'Ullas '",_;(aran.th"'faces'*Vone more criminal case'. The defendants _"..agai_n puiblislted another article on 7.8.2004 in 'Mysooru '{_'_"M:_i_ttl:1i_'r_=iVV"i'under a banner headline titled '§(aranth's 2' 'V.'j-ifrauduglent documentary film: foreign donor organisation V, 12
iv) Karanth and his group have actiyeVIi_y..4_:'i~.i_ Darticipated in the illegal acts of out the granted lands of the tribal'7:p_eoplel'i"i to the farmers in TenjalIi,.Bhiagrathiiiiaidiii,anidfl;
Hosalli.
The plaintiff alleged that"-tiheere is---.ne.gjsuE:hMsecret'VV Government report. All the alglegatiohns.nattriiljuted to the aiieged report to the he has not claimed that he h:as--:w]A:;V;V1V-gilt The tlhflrleports published in 'Mysooru 1992 goes on to state that the Nagarahole in the guise of condu§:t'ing '41;igV13_Vr_V"res'ea.rch. One Sri.Gangadhar Rai, i'ifiaVe'g'e ofrfiger, written a letter on 15.3.1939 to theAliassistartvVt"--{.flon.ise'rvator of Forests, Mysore, stating that piai'ntiff"h.a'd illegally smuggled out animal horns, Vsl<eI'e--t"ons, skin and skulls worth 200 crore rupees. V"«.V°TheseV_Va»l!-egations are false. Q/, 13 He also states that on 9.8.2004, the defendants again published another deliberately defamatory article in 'Star of Mysore'. This article bears the banner 'Karanth's fraudulent video claims credit for §iovegrn.me:nt'i-- work' and 'US. donor agency pays P.s».V1_.47g5 if Co'. These allegations are false the sole intention of defan1lfi'Q hAi's'and'-if reputation. In view of the hosti!e"vatt»itude"of_Snrit.Arekal towards him and his associates;l__tfh¢: aVl'lee_.g'ed_Vreport sent by Smt.ArekaI is a favlse and {Inalicious.V:'vreport.;"ti He also__ of articles are being published collusion with each other and with" the "Forest V" Department official by name :Smt:.'An_.ita The defendants have published the articles'___r.efé:rred~x.i'_'to hereinabove knowing fully well that the same wiIi~.l«ower his image in the eyes of the genera! Vsaancbaimongst his friends, acquaintances and his a_sso'<;iata-is and in the wild life scientific community. He E/T' 14 also states that he has got a prima-facie case as is evident from the facts stated and the documents produced by him.
4. The defendants 1 to 6 have filed the ob;".ec_tliovn statement in the Court below as under:
The application filed for grartlolfl'inj'unCt--ilori_is"n_ot7 maintainable. The application is_a gross--._abuse'.;o'f'proicesslfl of Court and intended to haraissilthe The defendants state that tl'a'fe./._4defe.nld'a:§jf:§'-beinglithe Editor, Director and Correspondent-1'ofifaji:leadi'ng,il'slewspaper in Mysore, tlh'e"'a'rticles and news items, which woul:d_e'x'pos:e' is the fundamental right of the defenduan.ts'vto the articles concerning the g.ene_ral._':pVut3.llic,V_andA'V"on.....uItal issues concerning public at large'. .»V1"t~.is"the;'I<i§'i~e.t of the Newspaper to publish articles, .7"u,__yyhich."ca'i'inot i:ie__denied just because the plaintiff desires. 'articles Vllrelating to the plaintiff which have referred in 5_"th_ea~p*lai'n'i:..and the application have been published on the credible information which the defendants have Us 15 gathered from reliable sources, namely from the officials of Forest Department.
It is also stated that each of the projects undertaken by the plaintiff have been controversial and public memory as to how the experiment.ati'c--ii'_»vv'ith=the Radio Coloring, several Tigers have been th.e'A.casu.a"l.ties_,r which is a matter of record aha it ills-also c:1;ec,je.ssar.ly state here that the Government___i:of,:_K--arnata«kaH had issued several instructions to the sj_aid"'v-research work. The various publications. have been based on which the defendants have gathered» sources and the defendarfgts have "nuybliishviedllisuch articles in the interest of basis of the credible and reliable inforn_1a't_i%onv4iiviiyhicifhave been gathered through a forest official by n.amé' Mrs.Anitha Arekal, IFS. l'.tis. also stated that filing of several cases are not in l' and have been admitted by the plaintiff. In the ._olaint itself, the plaintiff has averred that the person who /, P/J 16 is responsibie for publication of articies is none otherthan Mrs.Anitha Arekat and the aiieged articies wereAv.!J§i!5Viis'r§e'dV. not only in Mysore Mithra, but also in the Agni and the New India Express.f"A'i'h'e« source of information to the defendan_'ts*,.V_is a official and has proper document.t./»tG,pro.ve.thwef'sa}r1e§" i But V the piaintiff has not taken an*ym'a'ctjio:r1-,_against"the said officiai and the other Newsoai.oe'ris.:1
5. The sum,an;c'i<sLLi3sta.nice..iiofj_'~.th_eVj'findings of the Court beiow Piai_ntiff-hva.s'i'contentied in the Court beiow at the"'VVti'me' .V§f..iV'rarg.gime'nts that he is an internationaiiy,repiutedi wildlife scientist, who has5-{.pubiished'*--».o_y_er 50 scientific articles in :'in.t_ei'nationa«.§_V scientific pubiications of repute.
-..T:'heVp!a'int'ift"siexpertise in wilciiife sciences has been re.co§__ni:sed nationaiiy and internationaiiy. The g;ia.iVnti'ff's father, Dr.K.Shivarama Karanth a*famous iiterary and cuiturai icon of .Ka.rn'.ataka, Jnanapeeth award winner and aiso ' Fiadmabhushan award winner.
91/ 17 The trial Court has noticed that learned counsel for the defendants in the Court below»-.___ submitted that the Press Act authorises defendants to publish the articles in the i:.;iiial--i;e._tj interest. The defendants have not pyuybiiiyshetd i the articles to assassinate the~~c'h'aracter_, plaintiff. The publications are information furnished -.__.by 7,the Department official. right "of the defendants cannot be curt-ail-ed lb-»y_ issuance': of an injunction order.""«i:liLea'rna'd for the defendants in the Co.u.rt §ia,s"re|i'ed upon several decisions-in isu;;p.ort~of' his__contentions. '§he_ [observed that the Plaintiff has suit against the defendants. s'eeVk._in'g-_ iadiisum of Rs.1O lakhs as comi--pen'sation"'---»land. also for an order of :'pe_rrna"nent"«._._ injunction restraining the ~..de_fend:a-nts,'--their men, agents, servants or any one" through or under them from wriutingyy printing, publishing or circulating any Vyfiaylse or defamatory articles about the plaintiff. The trial Court has noted that at the time
-»-of arguments in the Court below, counsel for if 18 the plaintiff has brought to the notice of the triai Court an article published in the Kannada»-«__ Newspaper 'Mysore Mithra' dated 3"' July wherein it is stated that JMFC Court, Mud_igie'r'e.'V«...:
has issued arrest warrants against the In the same article, it is also--l'mentione.d:tvh_at the plaintiff has obtained antio'i.pa'i_or'y Chikmagalur Court. The ip'ia__intiff_l_1as if certified copies of the"'y:()rder'._sl"ie.et C.C.585/2004 and c..,<;.s9o;~2o_e4i'*lo_n thefilevflof the Prl. Civil Judge;JulViiflCif."Mudigere, which shows__only',sumrnons'fi"*we'ajve'i" issued against the piai..nItiff:and plaintiff's counsel has of the order sheets' inifWQr.I_.;R.eV._i5e.tition 82/2004 and 33/2064' on 'theAifjfiiié-~._:of.'the Prl. District and Sessions iJ'u.dge,vVchiinnaigalur, wherein stay was granitevd' by.» " Sessions Court against and 590/2004. On perusal of
-..th.eu'do:§::iineVe'nts, the trial Court observed that thei"artic.|'e:'ipublished in the Newspaper 'Mysore Mitiirzafldated 3.7.2004 regarding issuance of J'arrgest"warrant and obtaining anticipatory bail i.b'i,L_t:h!e plaintiff from the Sessions Court is false. g/,r 20 Newspaper 'Star of Mysore' and 'Mysore Mithra'--"-.. and also relied on the other articles pubIish«edff--,_:"'- by the defendants, to hold that these .;. have no basis and they are intended_.toV_a_:b,rin,g _ down the reputation of the ,'pla'inti_f1i., internationally reputed person}-A Counsel for the defenidialats in~.the'Co'urt below does not dispute the peuhil"i'cation"Of "any of the articles produced e_n?dAi.re'iii,ed:'e_n by the plaintiff's counsel. :Cc~:_-.n:sel- iitheyidefendants has producedX{;a,i*iouis copies of-'c'o.r.respondence / letters "Department as a basis.articl.es"wpulrilished by the defen'F[a'1ts;F'--"V."The"<~l.aeft~:.ndants cannot take shelter V, " p these official correspoVn"dence[_|e'tte'rs or statement of offiigiavls to ip*u.b_l"i_sh the articles, which are The letters, correspondences or st_atea§'entVofo.fficiaIs cannot be taken as gospel truth. H'7I_The so-called commissions and omuissionsffor the misdeeds of the plaintiff are yet to"*be proved. At this interlocutory stage, cannot hold a mini trial. In most of the articles, the plaintiff is referred sarcastically as "so-called researcher', which is also uncalled Q/if 21 for or unwarranted. Since it is not the case of the defendants that they have justification or.-.__ pleading truth of what is published in Newspapers, the trial Court has held that"'th'e--._._i plaintiff has made out a primawfacie case.-._: The L' % articles produced by the plaintiiffare defamatory nature and if theydefendantsfare:"sc,,._f::iA not restrained by an ordeir._of irijuiilctiearrfli will continue to publish art'icles,:'.= el-"i,-_éi{ though they have no .ya|idp.-basis'orjustifiicatiion for such articles. Heiic~e,. the?§.ti~ia'I--V;€ourt allowed the applicationfiled Order 39 Rule 1 and"«;;ji*i~ea;:i with Section___£i§S1 of Code of Civil Pr;oce_cluiie}_V_ "
6. I:'lVhaveA.':ivf,iiea}a ie_ar'nVed counsel for the appellants Holla, learned senior counsel, for the"'re.sP'9"nde_nt;"V A.,_¢QUnSeI for the appellants submits as i""--..u.nder:' V The defendants have published the articles in the on credible information and in the interest of V' 22 public. He relies on the decision in case of THE EDITOR, DECCAN HERALD v/s. PROF. M.S.RAMARAJU r¢Ap1'c§:r'té'dVc."'i'nV ILR 2005 KAR 1907 and Section 432 of Procedure.
8. Learned senior counsel,-45ri.llda§aVHo:lla§?.V5ub_h1itsH; that the trial Court after -on isetlevralvvvtiarticles published in the Newspape:-,_Aigitph-ich"*a're:'d_efamatory, has passed an order- from publishing any_ The trial Court, after carefully placed before it, has arrivedLa1;_ In support of his contention,Vw._hereliedlorllthie' decision in case of K.v.RAMAi~§IAH "V:/S.s.. SI'=4'.VE<l,I]g\'I;" i$'uBTLIc PROSECUTOR reported in wherein at para-11 of the jwdgment, it is h'el_d-"asx "_.It_1i'_-«is'therefoa-e'g_impossible to accept the "aarLgument:of thelearned counsel for the revision r; :_"i',peti1tioi:e_rsithateireedom of speech in Art.19(1) 'i$e'=ta_l5_e§1 to mean absolute freedom to say or writeiéwhatever a person chooses recklessly I?/T 23 and without regard to any person's honour and reputation. The right guaranteed by the-.__ Constitution, it must be borne in mind, is to_.'a_l:i-«..,_l'~V. the citizens alike. The right in one certain_E'y"'h--a_s..:
a corresponding duty to the other and jvudgyedfpinlny that manner also, the right giuamnteéed but be a qualified one. Indeed~:,th:e"ri'ght_ own natural limitation. -,_Reas'onably alone, it is an inestimable'-.pi'ivilege,_'~witli,odt such limitations it is.bound"to:'-b'e_.a scourge to the Republic.
The Americara--L3'uris]ts already discussed,___ _-long __&_'u.,nders'toodWthe natural limitat'.ion__s_ e.yi'is__ of absolute unbridged freedom of spe.ech'Van~cf:A"e.»<'pression. Though the 15' and 14*", amendinents declare in clear terms thatfno 'law sV.h"a.ll_a_béridge the freedom of speech press, this right having regard to its T'unatulraljfiyiiinaitations, has invariably been construedV'V'to..5'mean a qualified right and for this
-Vpurposegyythle doctrines such as doctrine of :"dan,ger,»----present and clear, or of substantial evil "'-_é_"t:vffi:¢.ient to justify impairment of the right, have ' been invoked to place that right within limits. '"Our Constitution framers taking benefit of the £5' 24 experience in America have in terms provided the necessary qualifications to this right. Article--___ 19(2) in this behalf contains safeguards;~~o1'-.._ifl_ reasonable restrictions on the exercise _of"'t--he_.: 5 right and it reads thus:-
019(2). Nothing in clause (1) shall affect the operation oifgaruy' existing law, or preyen::1';'r..._l:he.V' State: making any law,__ in so__:VVl"a.r as law imposes reason'a_l§"i%e on the exercise of the right-icon'ferredV'tiy."_t_he said su b-cla use .:i;n». the '_!.)_f it l'r.ex' secu rity of the Sta.te;:§j:itr'ie~n'dly- _reiatijons:'WVith foreign States.'ipiiybiiciiéiiorderry decency or morality, or _ r'el.aVti.bnV'i'..toa_"g:ontempt of court, defarn"a._tiorI or iwnciteajment to an offence." trial Couritv mainly relied on the articles pul5l.i.sVh_eud1o:ii...:1vl§.rJ..'2OO5, 13.9.2005, 22.7.2004, 5.5.2004, Vi"~'which liaye 'published in 'Star of Mysore' and 'Mysore
-..i.i'.§'jM.i_t_'lia»ra' an"d___Athe trial Court has explained in detail, from Ito page-41, the reasons for coming to the 'vcanclgision that there is a prima-facie case in favour of the 2/' 25 plaintiff. The trial Court has also observed that since it is not the case of the defendants that they have justifigdation or pleading truth of what is published in the it held that the plaintiff has made out a prim'a._:fac_cieVi'casey'V' for grant of interim relief of temporaryii'njui'1ct-:i'o.n";»<._ V
10. The appellate Court, should interflereiflujililh the discretionary order, when_""'discretion_ oral judiciously exercised by 'the tr_i.aVl:\=.g'o'ugrt. ti ?\Eo.rgn)_éi~liy, this Court being an appellate'*Cou-rtff.Vwi'l'l--Va:'interfere with the impugned Court has passed the order on vvlrong: This Court will interfere with the 'ordeirgof Court if the trial Court has discreti.o.nvarbitrarily or perversely. If it appears-v.to._l'th'e:."appellate Court that in exercise of in"e.._discretio'n, trial Court has acted unreasonably or _if~.._capricious.ly'nor ignored the relevant facts, then it would upon the appellate Court to interfere with the 'V.f~lt___r'i'al Court's exercise of jurisdiction. In this background, I Vi"-V,h4a»ve' to examine whether the impugned order has been 6/ 26 passed on the wrong principles or the impugned order is capricious or perverse. The trial Court relied on the articles and the headlines published by the defendia-1n'ts""i.n the Newspapers, which are of defamatory i' come to the conclusion that the plaintiff out it' primawfacie case. While reporter or editor has to caiI'--ef'ulMly scan .utVhe"'r._e'v'idence" V required and it was ne_cessary..ifor°--~t'hem'"to. he more cautious in their approaicligi "'I_n'i--.'A?ch.eiliiinistant case, the articles published in't_he the nature of defamatory,"a'nd:"t'he:':ifiieditoyrsi of""'the Newspaper are not cautious. Furth_er, order passed by the trial Court reads asxiunderz A _ 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w "'e__.Sec§1.S:1._:iC'F=.C"_;.filed by the Counsel for the plainitififi sol; allowed.
V L Issiie an order of ad-interim temporary "'-Viinjgurtction restraining the defendants, their rrgen, agents, servants or any one claiming "through or under them from writing, printing, fix"
27
publishing or circulating any false or defamatory articles about the plaintiff, pending___ disposal of the suit. No order as to costs. "
In my view, the impugned order is "
consistent with the principles of Iaw.'*r'vLearned'coiunséiljfcir it the appellants failed to point out how the"iVimiip--ujgn,ed "suffers from perversity. I hai'»*_e"-~.c%arefully the"? impugned order and it does notvys-..«iVVf.f:§:.r"*fryom'capricviousness or perversity. Taking aspects of the case, in my is just and reasonable." interfere with the impugned -.orde"r~. _.
11. In viewlv of. iasbove discussion, I pass the ...... ..
0 R D E R TihisihMiscielilaineous First Appeal is dismissed. ea 2 Ftjagalég