Karnataka High Court
Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd vs Nandi Infrastructure Corridor ... on 25 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980
WP No. 2225 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 2225 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 4211 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 2225/2021
BETWEEN:
1. ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT JAY CHAMBERS
"B" WING SERVICE ROAD, VILE PARLE (EAST)
MUMBAI-400 057.
REP. BY ITS BUSINESS HEAD.
2. SUVARNA NEWS 24X7
NO.36 CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP TO MALLIGE HOSPITAL,
NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS BUSINESS HEAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY K V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
by
MARKONAHALLI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
RAMU PRIYA OFFICE AT NO.1 MIDFORD HOUSE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MIDFORD GARDEN,
KARNATAKA OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 001.
REP. BY ITS CEO - MD.
2. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDEN
OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS CEO - MD.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980
WP No. 2225 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
3. MR ASHOK KHENY,
R/A NO.128, SANJEEVINI NILAYAM
2ND MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORRE-560 094.
4. MR SURESH SELVARAJ
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
5. MR VISHWESHWARA BHAT
EDITOR IN CHIEF KANNADA PRABHA
AND SUVARNA NEWS 24X7
OFFICE AT NO.36, CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP TO MALLIGE HOSPITAL,
NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
6. MS VIJAYALAKSHMI
SHIBARURU,
SPECIAL REPORTER,
SUVARNA NEWS 24X7,
OFFICE AT NO.36, CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP TO MALLIGE HOSPITAL,
NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. MR RAJEEV CHANDRASHEKAR,
DIRECTOR, ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
8. MR RAVI NARAYAN SAMPATH
DIRECTOR, ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 025.
9. MR M.P. SHIVARAMAN,
DIRECTOR, ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMTIED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980
WP No. 2225 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
10. MR C. SHAMSUNDAR
DIRECTOR
ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI M.V. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 & R3;
SRI SAINATH D.M. ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 & R8 TO R10;
NOTICE TO R7 IS D/W V/O DATED 14.07.2022 )
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD OF
THE CASE IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2019 IN
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.8986 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
AND TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION ANNEXURE-D BY STRIKING
DOWN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE ON 21.12.2020
ANNEXURE-H REJECTING THE SAME APPLICATION, IN ORDER TO
PREVENT A GRAVE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 4211/2021
BETWEEN:
1. ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT JAY CHAMBERS
B WING SERVICE ROAD,
VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI-400 057.
2. SUVARNA NEWS 24 X 7
NO.36, CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP.TO MALIGE HOSPITAL
NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY K V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
OFFICE AT NO.1 MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN,
OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 001.
REP. BY ITS CEO - MD.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980
WP No. 2225 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
2. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDEN
OFF MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS CEO - MD.
3. MR ASHOK KHENY,
R/A NO.128, SANJEEVINI NILAYAM
2ND MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORRE-560 094.
4. MR SURESH SELVARAJ,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
5. MR VISHWESHWARA BHAT,
EDITOR IN CHIEF, KANNADA PRABHA
AND SUVARNA NEWS 24X7
OFFICE AT NO.36, CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP TO MALLIGE HOSPITAL,
NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
6. MS VIJAYALAKSHMI SHIBARURU,
SPECIAL REPORTER,
SUVARNA NEWS 24X7,
OFFICE AT NO.36, CRESCENT ROAD,
OPP TO MALLIGE HOSPITAL,
NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
7. MR RAJEEV CHANDRASHEKAR,
DIRECTOR, ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
8. MR RAVI NARAYAN SAMPATH
DIRECTOR, ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980
WP No. 2225 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
BANGALORE -560 025.
9. MR M.P. SHIVARAMAN,
DIRECTOR, ASIANET NEWS
NETWORK PRIVATE LIMTIED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
10. MR C. SHAMSUNDAR
DIRECTOR
ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI M.V. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R3;
SRI SAINATH D.M. ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 & R8 TO R10;
NOTICE TO R7 IS D/W V/O DATED 18.03.2021 )
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR A WRIT OF ANY OTHER NATURE OR DESCRIPTION
TO SUSPEND THE PROCEEDINGS IN MISCELLANEOUS CASE
NO.171/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, BY ALLOWING THE
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.13 THEREIN VIDE ANNX-F AND
BY STRIKING DOWN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE
ON 21.12.2020 REJECTING THE SAME APPLICATION VIDE ANNX-H,
IN ORDER TO PREVENT A GRAVE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND
ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980
WP No. 2225 of 2021
C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
ORAL ORDER
In W.P.No.2225/2021, the petitioners have challenged the correctness of an order dated 21.12.2020 passed in O.S.No.8986/2012 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which IA.No.XVII filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [henceforth referred to as 'CPC'] was rejected.
2. W.P. No.4211/2021 is filed challenging an order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting an application in I.A.No.XIII in Miscellaneous Case No.171/2013 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.
3. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. The petitioners in both these writ petitions were arrayed as defendants No.1 and 2 while respondent Nos.1 to 3 were arrayed as plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court in O.S.No.8986/2012 and other respondents were arrayed as defendant Nos.4 to 9.
4. A suit in O.S.No.8986/2012 was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting or publishing any cover story, news item or any other television -7- NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 episode that defamed or was calculated to defame the plaintiffs or the project developed by them known as "Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor [BMIC]". They also sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to publish an unconditional apology in the television channel everyday at 9.30 p.m., for at least two weeks and through defendant No.5 for defamatory statements made and to unconditionally withdraw all such defamatory statements. The plaintiffs sought a sum of Rs.100,00,00,000/- for the damages caused to their reputation along with interest at 18% p.a.
5. (i) The plaintiffs contended that the first plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was entrusted by the Government of Karnataka with the exclusive right of construction, development and maintenance and operation of an integrated project called 'BMIC' under the terms of a Framework Agreement dated 03.04.1997 which envisaged construction of 111 Kilometre of expressway between Bengaluru and Mysuru, 41 Kilometre of Peripheral Road connecting National High Way No.7 and National High Way No.4 and several State Highways and National Highway No.209 and 9.1 Kilometre of Link Road connecting downtown -8- NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 Bengaluru and five townships all along the expressway with needed interchanges, ramps, service roads and development of industrial infrastructural facilities.
(ii) It is contended that the total extent of land required for the project was 20,193 acres. The State Government, through the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, had acquired certain private lands and had given it to the plaintiffs on long lease with an option to purchase the same at a pre-determined rate.
(iii) It is contended that the Framework Agreement, the project and the acquisition of land were challenged before this Court in W.P.No.29221/1997. This Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the same in terms of the order dated 21.09.1998. This judgment was thereafter confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.1423/1999. Being aggrieved by the acquisition of their land, another batch of writ petitions were filed by the individual land owners challenging the acquisition proceedings. The challenge was rejected and thereafter confirmed in W.A.Nos.72/2004 and connected appeals.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
(iv) It is contended that another set of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.45334/2004, 45386/2004 and 48981/2004 was filed by All India Manufacturers Organisation, an Ex-MLA and a private individual. In the said writ petitions, this Court directed the Government of Karnataka to implement the project notwithstanding the objections filed against its implementation and acquisition and dismissed the writ petitions with costs of Rs.50,000/- on the Ex-MLA.
(v) It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 20.04.2006 dismissed Civil Appeal Nos.3492-3494/2005 and connected appeals, filed against the judgments rendered by this Court dated 28.02.2005 and 3.5.2005, by imposing costs of Rs.5,00,000/-. Likewise, it is contended that the appeal filed by the land owners challenging the acquisition proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 1215/2011 was also dismissed.
(vi) It is next contended that in Writ Petition No.3438/2010 and connected petitions, which were disposed of by this Court, it was reiterated that the project was in the interest of the general public which facilitated industrial and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 commercial growth creating job opportunities to various persons in the State.
(vii) The plaintiffs contended that the defendants are persons connected with the production of news and other programmes for the channel 'Suvarna News 24x7'. They contended that defendant No.1 telecast two programmes on 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 to disparage and defame the plaintiffs as well as the project undertaken by them. The contents of the episode dated 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 are extracted in the plaint and the same are recorded below:
Contents of the Episode on 07.12.2012:
"EzÀÄ PÀ£ÀßrUÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖ £ÉÆêɵÀÄÖ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ K£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀzÀ°è ªÀÄļÀÄUÉ JzÀÝ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, d£À¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉýÛä"
"EªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁPÉ EµÉÆÖAzÀÄ £ÉÆA¢zÁÝgÉ, £ÁrUÉ MAzÀÄ M¼Éî gÀ¸ÉÛ PÉÆqÉÆà F AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁPÉ EµÉÆÖAzÀÄ zÀƶ¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ w½AiÀÄ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä PÀªÀgï ¸ÉÆÖÃj F vÀAqÀ £Éʸï ZÀPÀæªÀÇåºÀzÉƼÀUÉ £ÀÄVÎvÀÄÛ."
"DzÉæ, D §½PÀ F ¸ËªÀÄå ªÀÄÄRz £ÀA¢ ºÀÄ°gÁAiÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀ, PÀÄgÀÄqÀÄ PÁAZÁt PÀÄtÂAiÀįÁgÀA©ü¹vÀÄ, PÁ°UÉ ©zÀݪÀgÀ£Àß vÀĽÀAiÀįÁgÀA©ü¹vÀÄ. "
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 "F ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ ºÉÆgÀ §gÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ªÀiÁåfPï £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛ. CzÉãÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ? £Éʸï AiÉÆÃd£Á ªÁå¦Û 20193 JPÀgÉ EAzÀ 175250UÉ ºÉZÁÑUÀÄv.ÉÛ §»gÀAUÀUÉƼÀÄîvÉÛ £ÀUÀß ¸ÀvÀå. ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ EµÉÖ¯Áè £ÁlPÀ DqÉÆÃzÀÄ AiÀiÁPÉ UÉÆvÁÛ? C¸À°UÉ ¸ÀÆܯÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£É ©.JA.L..¹.J. gÀa¸ÀĪÀÅzÉà E®è. CzÀÄ SÁ¸ÀVAiÀĪÀjUÀÆ M¦à¸À®è. §zÀ¯ÁV £ÉÊ¸ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ vÀ£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÉ ¸ÀÆܯÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¹ ©.JA. L.¹.J. UÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛ. EzÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w PÁ¬ÄzɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ F zÁR¯ÉUÀ½AzÀ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ."
"£ÉʸïUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÁ®PÀ¸À. £Éʸï AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÁ£ÀƤUÉ PÀªÀqÉ PÁ¸ÀÄ QªÀÄäwÛ®è ......... MAzÀÄ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ£ÀÄß GzÁÝgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £ÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, d£À£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ JAxÀ ¤ÃZÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉøÀ®è C£ÉÆßÃzÀPÉÌ F £Éʸï AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÉÄà ¸ÁQë, ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀUÀ¼À vÁ¬ÄAiÉÄAzÀÄ C¤¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ F £ÉÊ¸ï ºÀUÀgÀtzÀ E£ÀßµÀÄÖ PÀgÁ¼À gÀÆ¥À vÉÆÃj¹Ûä ........... £ÉÊ¸ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉzÀÄPÀÄvÁÛ PÉzÀÄPÀÄvÁÛ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ §æºÁäAqÀªÉà vÉgÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛ."
"SÉÃt PÀµÀÖPÉÌ ¥ÁnîgÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ:
......... »ÃUÉ, £Éʸï PÀA¥À¤, ¨ÁåAPï ºÁUÀÆ ®eÉÓUÉlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉÆÃrzÀ SÉqÀØPÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀÄ®¨sÀªÁV ©Ã¼ÀÄvÉÛ. ...... E°èUÉ ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄ®è £ÉÊ¸ï £À PÀªÀÄðPÁAqÀzÀ PÀxÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ J¯ÁèzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¤zsÁðgÀªÀ£ÀÄß C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß PÉý¢ÝÃgÁ? DzÀgÉ, F £ÉÊ¸ï ºÀUÀgÀtzÀ°è C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀaªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÄlzÀ ¤zsÁðgÀªÀ£Éßà §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ ...... F £É®PÉÌ £É® £ÀÄAUÀĪÀ §PÁ¸ÀÄgÀ£ÀAvÉ £Éʸï PÁ°nÖvÀÄ. CzÀg ¨sÀÆzÁºÀ ¤ÃV¸À®Ä £ÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F £É®zÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV G®èAX¹ ¯ÉÆÃqÀUÀlÖ¯É ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀgÀÄ. D ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄįÁf®èzÉ £ÀªÀÄä §qÀ gÉÊvÀgÀ ¨sÀÆ«Ä£À £ÀÄAUÀÄvÀÛ¯Éà ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ. eÉÆvÉUÉ CªÀgÀ §zÀÄPÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ £ÀÄAV ºÁQvÀÄ. CzÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ CAvÀ ºÉýÛä §¤ß."
Contents of the Episode on 14.12.2012:
"ªÀiÁzÁªÀgÀ ªÀÄA¢ UÉÆüÀÄ PÉý
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 £Éʸï zËdð£ÀåzÀ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄR vÉÆÃj¹Ûä §¤ß. EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀªÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄA¢. EªÀjUÀqÉ ¸ÀvÀÛ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ®UÀ®Ä eÁUÀ PÉÆnÖ®è."
"ªÀgÀ¢UÁwð: zÉñÀzÀ C©üªÀÈ¢ÞUÉ ¸ÀĸÀfÓvÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤d. DzÀgÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ C£ÉÆßà ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸ÀªÁð¢üPÁjAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀwð¸ÉÆÃzÀÄ. F £É®zÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£À£ÀÄß PÁ® PÀ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉƼÉÆîÃzÀÄ, PÀAqÀÄ PÀAqÀªÀgÀ SÁ° eÁUÀ, ¸ÉÊlÄ, ¯ÉÃOlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀÄAUÉÆÃzÀÄ, ºÉzÀj¸ÉÆÃzÀÄ, ¨ÉzÀj¸ÉÆÃzÀÄ, PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÉÆÃzÀÄ EzÀ£É߯Áè ºÉÃUÉ ¸À»¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå? zÀÄgÀÄAvÀ CAzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä UÉæÃmï ¥ÀæeÁ¥Àæ¨sÀÄvÀégÁµÀÖçzÀ°è SÉÃt AiÀÄAvÀªÀjUÀÆ ºÉzÀj §zÀÄPÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¥Àj¹Üw §A¢zÉ."
"SÉÃt ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀ gÁåVAUï:
E°è£À ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæwPÀëtªÀ£ÀÄß DvÀAPÀ¢AzÀ PÀ¼ÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. FUÁUÀ¯Éà CzsÀðfêÀ DVgÀĪÀ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É C±ÉÆÃPÀ SÉÃt ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw gÁåVAUï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ C£ÉÆßÃzÀPÉÌ EªÀgÉÆAzÀÄ GzÁºÀgÀuÉ PÉÆqÁÛgÉ PÉý."
"£Éʸï CPÀæªÀÄzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqÉ¢ªÉ. DzÀgÉ F J¯Áè ºÉÆÃgÁlUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÊ¸ï ªÀåªÀ¹ÜvÀªÁV £Á±À¥Àr¹zÉ. ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄlÖºÁQzÉ ........."
"ªÀgÀ¢UÁwð: F vÁ¬ÄA¢gÀ PÀtÂÚÃgÀ£ÀÄß PÁt¯ÁUÀzÀµÀÄÖ £ÀªÀÄä UÀȺÀ ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ PÀÄgÀÄqÀgÁVzÁÝgÁ? ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀåªÀ¸ÉܸÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃVzÉAiÀiÁ? F J¯Áè ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ£ÀßqÀ £Ár£À ¥ÀæeÁÕªÀAvÀgÀÄ PÉüÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. §qÀªÀgÀ EµÉÆÖAzÀÄ ¸ÀAPÀµÀÖ £ÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ PÀlÖPÀqÉAiÀÄzÁV £ÀªÀÄä£Àß PÁqÀĪÀ ¥Àæ±Éß K£ÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ? £ÁåAiÀÄ J°èzÉ? UÁA¢ü ºÀÄnÖzÀ £ÁqÀ°è ¸ÀvÀå C»A¸ÉUÉ ¨É¯É E¯Áé? ¸ÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgÀ£ï CAvÀ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀjUÉ dAiÀÄ£Éà E¯Áé?"
"PÉÆÃn PÉÆÃn wAzÀÄ PÉÆ©âzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ §æµÀÖ SÉÃt C§âgÀPÉÌ PÉÆ£ÉAiÉÄà E¯Áé? ¤ªÀÄUÉ £ÉÊ¸ï £ÀUÀß ¸ÀvÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉý¢é. FUÀ £ÉʸïUÉ £ÉÆAzÀªÀjUÉ ¨ÉA§® PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀjUÉ ¨ÉA§® PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÉ. RArvÀªÁV EªÀjUÉ ¨ÉA§® PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀ C£ÉÆßà «±Áé¸À £ÀªÀÄä°èzÉ. EzÀÄ EªÀwÛ£À PÀªÀgï ¸ÉÆÖÃj."
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
(viii) The plaintiffs contended that this was very disturbing and defamed the plaintiffs and generated a false opinion in the mind of the general public. The plaintiffs claimed that the episodes telecast by the defendants were all far from truth as the Courts from time to time had upheld the acquisition as well as the implementation of the project. The plaintiffs therefore sought for perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction and compensation as stated supra.
6. (i) The suit was contested by defendants No.1, 4 and 5, who filed an elaborate written statement admitting the telecast of two episodes that were complained of by the plaintiffs. The defendants sought to justify the telecast by relying upon various discussions and meetings of the Empowered Committee and contended that the project itself was not approved. They also claimed that the plaintiffs had violated the terms of the discussions of the Empowered Committee by acquiring lands that were not demarcated for the project.
(ii) They contended that though the land demarcated for the project was 20,193 acres, the plaintiffs, in collusion with certain unscrupulous government servants, had illegally held
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 land far in excess of what was originally demarcated for the project.
(iii) The defendants sought to justify the programmes aired by them on their television network and contended that they were true and based on the documents/information procured by them. Based on this, the trial Court framed issues and set down the suit for trial.
7. (i) During the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs, the defendants filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC seeking the below mentioned documents from the plaintiffs:
"1. The data and documents that show the extent of toll recovered from the public by way of toll levied and collected on the toll roads - peripheral roads, link road and the expressway (if any) since 18-Dec-2008 to the present date. Also, the data and documents that show the start and completion of laying of concrete on the toll roads after the date of impugned telecast to the present date;
2. Information and documents about the acquisition of forest lands for the execution of the BMIC project, information about the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 damage and destruction of the forest flora and fauna in those lands and documents to reflect if the plaintiffs have moved the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for a modification of the Somashekar Reddy judgment in so far as it affirmed an embargo on the acquisition of forest lands for the BMIC project;
3. Copy of the record before the following cases at the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Contempt Petition (Civil) No.144 of 2006 (Dakshinamurthy v. B.K.Das, IAS) and Contempt Petition (Civil) No.96/2007 (Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited v. P.B.Mahishi, IAS);
4. Information and documents about the extent of land that the plaintiffs have already alienated to third parties and the financial consideration obtained by the plaintiffs in respect of 2747 acres of land provided to the plaintiffs by the Government of Karnataka for construction of the peripheral road;
5. A detailed map and survey wise information about the lands covered by the BMIC project as on 3-Apr-1997 (the date of the Framework Agreement), documents to show changes effected to it until this day and the approval or
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 permission secured with regard to such change, if any."
(ii) It was contended in the affidavit accompanying the application that the documents sought for, were in the power and possession of the plaintiffs, which were relevant and imperative to establish the case of the defendants. It was also contended that in order to touch upon the false, misleading, frivolous, vexatious averments made by the plaintiffs and to demonstrate massive land grabbing, fraud and corruption played by them on the general public, those documents were necessary. In support of the request for documents, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs were illegally levying toll and criminally appropriating the toll collected without completing the project.
(iii) They also alleged that the plaintiffs had illegally acquired 168 acres of forest land. They claimed that Government of Karnataka had informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition [Civil] No.144/2006 about the serious illegalities and fraudulent conduct of the promoter and justified its reluctance to handover additional lands sought for by the promoter of the plaintiffs. It is contended that though
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had initially urged the Government of Karnataka to take steps to fulfill the promoter's demands in order to overcome his allegation of contempt against the Government, the Court eventually recognized the merit in the government's contention and refused to continue the contempt petitions and hence dismissed them on 18.07.2019. The defendants contended that the documents in Contempt Petition No.144/2006 were therefore relevant to establish the observations of the Government of Karnataka and also to non- suit the plaintiffs.
(iv) It was also alleged that 554 acres of private lands were acquired by the private promoter in the guise of acquiring the same for peripheral road. In support of this contention, they claimed that the promoters had submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in terms of the judgment in Somashekar Reddy vs. State of Karnataka [Writ Petition No.29221/1997], they were in need of 2193 acres for peripheral road, but the total extent of land handed over was 2747 acres and therefore there was excess of 554 acres of land that was handed to the promoter. They also contended that the promoter of the plaintiffs taking advantage of the fact that
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 in Somashekara Reddy's case, the survey numbers and the extent of lands were not identified, they proceeded to acquire various extents of private lands of individuals to establish a township etc.,
(v) The defendants therefore contended that these documents are necessary for the purpose of establishing their defence and also to non-suit the plaintiffs.
8. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs contending inter alia that the defendants had claimed that they had telecast two episodes based on the material that they had sourced and therefore they were bound to establish their defence by relying on the material available with them and cannot fish for evidence with the plaintiffs.
9. The trial Court, after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants, rejected the application in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the documents called for by the defendants were vague and the same had nothing to do with the controversy to be decided in the suit. Being aggrieved with the said order, Writ Petition No.2225/2021 is filed.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
10. (i) After the suit was filed, the trial Court granted an ex-parte order of interim injunction on 21.12.2012 restraining the defendants from telecasting or publishing any cover story, news item or any television episode whatsoever which defamed or was calculated to defame the plaintiffs' project known as "Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor"
till the next date of hearing.
(ii) It is alleged that in violation of order of interim injunction and even after the same being served on 21.12.2012 itself, the defendants telecast another episode. The plaintiffs therefore filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, which was registered as Misc.No.171/2013. After trial, the defendants filed an application [I.A.XIII] under Section 151 CPC to postpone or suspend the proceedings till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.8986/2012. It was contended inter alia in the affidavit accompanying the application that the interim injunction granted was to restrain the defendants from telecasting any programme that defamed the plaintiffs or project undertaken by them and that such question was yet to be considered by the trial Court in OS No.8986/2012.
Therefore, it was contended that until the question whether the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 telecasts dated 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 were defamatory or not was considered in O.S.No.8986/2012, the Court should postpone or suspend the consideration of the petition in Misc.No.171/2013.
11. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs, who inter-alia contended that the interim order of injunction was duly served upon the defendants and therefore they were obliged in law not to telecast any programme about the plaintiffs and the project, so long as the interim injunction was in force. Nonetheless, the defendants with impunity and without least regard to the order of interim injunction granted by the Court, telecast another episode on 21.12.2012 which too carried defamatory statements/articles against the plaintiffs and the project. Therefore, the question that fell for consideration in Misc.No.171/2013 was, "Whether the defendants knowing fully well the order of injunction, were justified in telecasting another programme on 21.12.2012?"
12. The trial Court after considering the contentions of both the parties held that the "the Court has to consider whether the subsequent programmes telecast by the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 defendants after the order dated 21.12.2012 are defamatory or not" and therefore, there was no necessity to postpone or suspend the proceedings in the present petition till the disposal of OS No.8986/2012 as claimed by the defendants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed W.P.No.4211/2021.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 in both these petitions submitted the following:
i) the powers of the Court under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is wide and encompasses all suits, including a suit for damages on account of alleged defamation. He submits that the Code of Civil Procedure does not make any distinction between the suits filed for defamation or any other reliefs. He therefore, contends that Order XI Rule 14 of CPC is applicable across the board in respect of suits and the parties are entitled to call upon the opposite party to produce documents to establish their respective cases. In this regard, he has relied upon the following judgments:-
a) M/s. Paras Drugs and Chemical Industries and others vs. UCO Bank and others [2000 SCC Online Raj 65];
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
b) Naveen Jindal vs. M/s. Zee Media Corporation Ltd., and another [2017 SCC Online Del 8209]
ii) He further contended that the episodes that were telecast, were based on the materials collected by the defendants and also based on the Legislative House Committee Report. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to call for the relevant documents in order to establish the finding of the House Committee Report. Thus, he contends that it was imminent that the Court exercised jurisdiction under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC to direct the plaintiffs to produce the documents. He contends that these documents were not readily available in the public domain and are voluminous in its nature and hence, if the plaintiffs want to come out clean and wants to justify that the statements made in the episodes were all false, the plaintiffs should unhesitantly produce these documents.
iii) He further contends that the telecast dated 21.12.2012 was a sequel to the episodes dated 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. Therefore, the question whether the telecast dated 21.12.2012 was defamatory or not, is a matter of fact and therefore, unless the main suit is decided, the question of deciding the miscellaneous proceedings does not arise. He
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 invited the attention of the Court to the interim order passed and contended that what was injuncted was dissemination of "defamatory" material and therefore, he contends that whether the episode dated 21.12.2012 was defamatory or not, had to be viewed based on the earlier episodes and based on the documents that may be produced by the parties at the time of trial.
iv) He therefore, contends that the Trial Court committed an error in not postponing the determination of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. He contends that if the Court were to hold that what was telecast on 21.12.2012, is defamatory then it would virtually be prejudging the earlier episodes dated 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. Thus, he contends that the Trial Court committed an error in not allowing the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC along with the main suit.
14. (i) Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs contended that in an action for defamation, the defence of the defendants cannot be anything but the truth. Therefore, it was for the defendants to establish that the episodes that were telecast on 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 were based on material sourced and its authenticity. He submits that it is for the defendants to produce those materials before the Court so as to enable it to assess whether the telecast made on 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 were based on the materials so sourced. Thus, he contends that the defendants cannot use Order XI Rule 14 of CPC to fish for documents from the plaintiff.
(ii) Besides, he contends that the order of interim injunction dated 21.12.2012 was served on the same day, which is evident from email correspondences between the plaintiffs and the officials of the defendant No.1. He therefore, contends that the defendants could not escape from the consequences of telecasting the episode dated 21.12.2012 by claiming that they were unaware of the interim injunction granted. He further contends that the Court was only concerned, whether the defendants even after being notified about the injunction granted, had deliberately telecast the third episode on 21.12.2012. Thus, he contends that the defendants cannot escape the consequences of disobeying the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 application filed by the defendants to postpone the consideration of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.
15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs. I have also perused three episodes that were telecast by the defendants. I have also perused the records produced before the Court by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
16. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs, in an action for defamation, the truth in the allegations and the attempt made by defendant/s to verify it are the only defences. In a suit for defamation, the plaintiff is expected to plead and prove how the published statement was defamatory by producing an authenticated version of the publication/telecast/statement, which he/she claims to have defamed him/her and also produce such evidence to establish that such publication/telecast/statement was disseminated to the general public or to persons known to him/her, which dented his/her image in the eyes of the general public. Once
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 he/she is able to establish the above, the measure of damages payable would be assessed based upon the economic/social/political status and the extent of damage to such status by it being reduced or damaged. However, when it comes to a defendant, he/she is bound to prove each and every statement made in the incriminating article by producing acceptable documentary evidence justifying its publication/circulation. He/she is bound to establish that he/she had made reasonable enquiries to verify its/their veracity and therefore, he/she genuinely believed them to be true. It could also be that the purported defamatory statement could be based on information provided by persons, who have knowledge about that fact, but there should be tangible evidence to establish that such statements were verified before being circulated. The defendant is bound to furnish the details of such persons, who had disclosed the facts based upon which, he/she had disseminated or published such information.
17. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have categorically mentioned in the plaint, the statements made by the defendants in the two episodes dated 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012, which purportedly defamed the plaintiffs and their
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 project. Therefore, it is for the defendants to establish that the information published or telecast was based on the documents/information sourced/collected by them. A perusal of the two episodes referred above, shows that the defendants have substantially relied upon the Karnataka Legislative House Committee report, the Frame Work Agreement, the proceedings before the Courts and the statements of the aggrieved land owners that were collated. It therefore goes without saying that the defendants had pieced together various circumstances and had claimed that the proponents of the project had indulged in wrong doing. Whether the material so collected was sufficient enough to justify the defence, is a matter of fact. In so far as the House Committee report is concerned, it is not necessary that the defendants have to prove every bit contained therein. If they are able to establish that the episodes that were telecast were based on the House Committee report, they are bound to produce an authenticated copy of the House Committee report. Having said that, the defendants are not completely deprived of the power to call for the documents from the plaintiffs. Undoubtedly, Order XI Rule 14 of CPC transcends all suits and is equally applicable to a defamation suit. However, the defendants are bound to first
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses and confront to them all those facts and circumstances appearing against them which the defendants had unraveled before telecasting the two episodes. Therefore, at what stage such an application could be entertained, is a matter that requires consideration.
18. In the present case, the plaintiffs have already adduced evidence and the case is now set down for cross- examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses. The defendants instead of going ahead with the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, have even before opening up their case, called for documents from the plaintiffs, which is unacceptable. The defendants after cross-examining the plaintiffs' witnesses and after adducing the respective evidence of their witness and after placing all the records in their custody to justify the episodes that were telecast on 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012, possibly could resort to Order XI Rule 14 of CPC. It is only then that the defendants would get a right to file an application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC to summon the documents from the custody of the plaintiffs to non suit them. Therefore, the defendants though had a right to summon the documents mentioned in the application, that right did not accrue until the
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 defendants stepped into the witness box and displayed their evidence by producing the documents in their custody. The reasoning of the Trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the defendants, though warrants interference, but the ultimate finding rejecting the application does not warrant any interference. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be suitably modified so as to protect the interest of the defendants also.
19. In so far as the application (I.A.No.XIII) filed under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Trial Court to postpone the consideration of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, it is pertinent to note the nature of the interim order granted by the Trial Court. The same is extracted below:-
"Issue order of ad temporary injunction as prayed in I.A.II restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any person claiming through or under them either jointly or severally from telecasting or publishing any cover story, news item or any other television Episode whatsoever which defames or is calculated to defame the plaintiff or the Project known as the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor till the next date of hearing."
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
20. Therefore, what was injuncted was the telecast or publication of "defamatory or any article which calculated to defame the plaintiffs." When the Courts grant an ex-parte order, they are bound to be mindful of the fact that press in India have a fundamental right of free speech and expression. Therefore, a fine balance has to be maintained while granting ex-parte gag orders. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and others vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited [Civil Appeal No.4602/2024], where the Hon'ble Apex Court approved the rule laid down in Bonnard vs. Perryman [1891] 2 Ch. 269]. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held, "12. Undoubtedly, the grant of an interim injunction is an exercise of discretionary power and the appellate court (in this case, the High Court) will usually not interfere with the grant of interim relief. However, in a line of precedent, this Court has held that appellate courts must interfere with the grant of interim relief if the discretion has been exercised "arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions." The grant of an ex parte interim injunction by way of an unreasoned order, definitely falls within the above formulation, necessitating interference by
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 the High Court. This being a case of an injunction granted in defamation proceedings against a media platform, the impact of the injunction on the constitutionally protected right of free speech further warranted intervention.
13. In view of the above, the High Court ought to have, in our view, also at least prima facie assessed whether the test for the grant of an injunction was duly established after an evaluation of facts. The same error which has been committed by the trial Judge has been perpetuated by the Single Judge of the High Court. Merely recording that a prima facie case exists, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of injunction and that an irreparable injury would be caused, would not amount to an application of mind to the facts of the case. The three-fold test cannot merely be recorded as a mantra without looking into the facts on the basis of which an injunction has been sought. In the absence of such a consideration either by the trial Judge or by the High Court, we have no option but to set aside both the orders of the trial Judge dated 1 March 2024 and of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 14 March 2024. We do so accordingly."
21. One another way of striking a balance between the plaintiffs wanting to protect their image/reputation and the press wanting to unleash information is to injunct the defendants from publishing any material without the permission of the Court. The defendants can also be put on terms to produce all documents/information sourced by them to justify
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 the publication. These documents/information could be tested before granting permission. They could also be assessed while finally deciding the suit whether the publication was dissemination of truth or was it defamatory.
22. The defendants being a part of a media house are also guaranteed with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, subject however to reasonable restrictions. So long as the publication made by the defendants was not defamatory and did not amount to incitement to commit an offence and so long as it did not violate the limits of decency or morality, they were entitled to claim the constitutional protection. As to what amounts to violation of decency or morality or becomes defamatory, is a matter of fact that needs to be looked into and investigated thoroughly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the question whether episodes telecast by the defendants on 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 defamed the plaintiffs or not, was therefore, the fulcrum question that the Court had to try and adjudicate. Since the Court only injuncted the defendants from telecasting what was not defamatory and what did not amount to defaming the plaintiffs, the Court could not have proceeded to consider
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, as that would predetermine the entire issue. It is not in dispute that the defendants had telecast two episodes on 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 and third episode that was telecast on 21.12.2012 was a sequel of the first two episodes. Therefore, it would be difficult for the Trial Court to decipher as to what was defamatory and what was not defamatory unless it looked into the episodes dated 07.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. Since the issue, whether the telecast dated 21.12.2012 amounted to defamation or not, was also a question of fact that had to be looked into, the Trial Court ought to have considered the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC along with the main suit. If it was an ordinary suit for injunction where the Court had granted an order of injunction to do or not to do a particular act, the situation would have been different. In that case, the tests to determine were (i) whether there was any violation of order of interim injunction, (ii) whether the defendant was made known of the order and whether the defendant had deliberately with impunity violated the order of injunction. However, in the present case, the order of injunction is tempered by a condition that what was telecast or published should not be defamatory. Therefore, the Court had
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021 to be satisfied with two conditions namely, the order of injunction was served on the defendants and whether what was published by them on 21.12.2012 was defamatory. In so far as the first condition is concerned, the plaintiffs had produced some material but whether that was sufficient or not is yet to be established. The second condition being one of fact can be ascertained only after a full fledged trial. In that view of the matter, any finding that may be recorded by the Trial Court on the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC would invariably result in pre-judging the suit on merits.
23. Consequently, W.P.No.2225/2021 is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 21.12.2020 passed on I.A.No.XVII in O.S.No.8986/2012 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is not disturbed. However, liberty is reserved to the defendants to renew their request to call for the documents from the plaintiffs after they enter witness box and produce the documents. If an application is filed by the defendants at that stage, the Trial Court shall pass suitable orders in accordance with law based on the evidence already adduced before it.
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39980 WP No. 2225 of 2021 C/W WP No. 4211 of 2021
24. In view of the discussion at para Nos.19 to 22, W.P.No.4211/2021 is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Misc.No.171/2013 rejecting I.A.No.XIII filed by the defendants under Section 151 of CPC is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to consider the petition (Misc.No.171/2013) filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC along with the main suit.
25. Having regard to the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2012, the Trial Court is requested to take up the suit on day to day basis and dispose off the suit at the earliest and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005.
26. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE NV - para 1 to 12 PMR - para 13 to end