Delhi District Court
Dr. Ashok Choudhary vs ). Smt. Jeena Joseph on 28 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL, ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN
JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI
Case No. 121/21
1. Dr. Ashok Choudhary,
S/o Sh. Shyamaghana Sahoo,
R/o 6/84, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
...........Plaintiff.
Versus.
1). Smt. Jeena Joseph,
W/o Sh. George Kutty Sabastin,
R/o Vadayil House, Cheruvally,
Kattappana, Idukki,
Kerala-688529.
[email protected] ........Defendant no. 1.
2). Sh. George Kutty Sabastin,
R/o Vadayil House, Cheruvally,
Kattappana, Idukki,
Kerala-688529.
[email protected] ........Defendant no. 2.
3). Ms. Anona Maria George,
(Minor Child),
Through her natural guardian,
R/o Vadayil House, Cheruvally,
Kattappana, Idukki,
Kerala-688529.
[email protected] ........Defendant no. 3.
CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 1 of 7
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution of the suit : 02.02.2021
Date of reserving for judgment : 23.11.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.01.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a doctor and presently working at Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences as Associate Professor in the Department of Hepatology and Liver Transplant. That defendant no. 1 was working as nurse at Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences. That plaintiff had met the defendant no. 1 in the year 2011 at the said hospital when defendant no. 1 was working as a nurse there. That defendant no. 1 and her husband/defendant no. 2 had a baby girl on 09.09.2014 namely Anona Maria George/defendant no. 3. That around September-October, 2017, defendant no. 1 was laid off from her job due to illegal and malafide conduct. That defendant no.1 starting messaging plaintiff on the pretext that the daughter which was born out of the wedlock between her and her husband/defendant no. 2 was the biological child of the plaintiff. That defendant no. 1 started threatening and blackmailing the plaintiff in this regard. That defendant no. 1 started sending criminally intimidating messages to the plaintiff claiming a huge sum of money, failing which she claimed that 'she will end everything'. That vide chain of messages commencing from 10.02.2018, defendant no. 1 started extorting money from the CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 2 of 7 plaintiff on the pretext that she will end her life and kill defendant no. 3/her child. That defendant no. 2 also messaged the plaintiff in order to extort money and threatened that he would bring the relationship of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in the public domain. That in order to safeguard his family and his professional life, plaintiff was forced to transfer a huge sum of money to the defendants. That defendant no. 1 once again demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- from the plaintiff on pretext of death and legal threats vide messages dated 21.05.2019 and 22.07.2019. That plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs. 47,47,900/- to defendants till date. That extortion messages from defendants continue till date and plaintiff does not foresee the same stopping anywhere in near future. That plaintiff also made a police complaint about the same at PS Malviya Nagar vide DD no. 33B dated 24.07.2019. That defendant no. 1 and 2 had also tried to contact plaintiff and his wife continuously for hours on daily basis and were threatening them about subjecting them to defamation at their respective hospitals, where plaintiff and his wife work as doctors. Hence, the present suit for mandatory injunction for restraining the defendants from alleging that defendant no. 3 is the daughter of plaintiff and also for restraining the defendants from publishing any defamatory material against plaintiff and his family.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants, which summons were duly served upon defendants. However, despite service, no written statement was filed on behalf of either of the defendants and CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 3 of 7 none appeared on their behalf subsequently in this suit. Hence, vide order dated 26.02.2022, defendants were proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Since defendants were proceeded against ex-parte, issues were not framed and matter was listed directly for plaintiff evidence.
4. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as his only witness. Plaintiff entered into the witness box as PW1 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, wherein averments made in the plaint were reiterated. He also relied upon various documents, such as news article/publication dated 01.10.2017 as Ex.PW1/1, copy of birth certificate dated 09.09.2014 as Ex.PW1/2, Facebook and text messages received by plaintiff from the defendants as Ex.PW1/3 (colly), copy of bank statements as Ex.PW1/4 (colly), complaint at PS Malviya Nagar dated 24.07.2019 as Ex.PW1/5, certified copy of order dated 14.11.2019 as Ex.PW1/6, copy of e-mail dated 10.01.2021 as Ex.PW1/7 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/8. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Hence, vide order dated 04.04.2022, plaintiff evidence was closed and matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments.
5. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that evidence led by plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged and that suit should be decreed in favour of plaintiff.
CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 4 of 7
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. At the very outset, it must be noted that though in the prayer clause, plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction, the said reliefs are actually in the nature of permanent injunction. However, it is settled law that mentioning a wrong provision of law or using wrong terminology shall not disentitle a party from obtaining a relief to which it is otherwise entitled. Both the reliefs of injunction sought by plaintiff are primarily to the effect that defendants be restrained from claiming at public platforms that defendant no. 3 is the biological daughter of plaintiff. In order to be entitled to the said reliefs, plaintiff was required to establish that defendants have been making such claims. In order to prove the same, plaintiff tendered into evidence various messages (Facebook as well as text messages) sent by defendant no. 1 and 2 as Ex. PW1/3 (colly). The same are duly supported by affidavit of plaintiff u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was also tendered into evidence by plaintiff/PW1 as Ex. PW1/8. As per messages Ex. PW1/3, it is clear that defendant no. 1 and 2 have been claiming that plaintiff is the biological father of daughter of defendant no. 1 and have been extorting money from plaintiff on this account. Defendant no. 1 and 2 have also threatened the plaintiff about making this information public. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff apprehends that defendant no. 1 and 2 might go public with their claim regarding plaintiff being biological father of the daughter of defendant no. 1.
CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 5 of 7 Also, bank account statement Ex. PW1/4 shows that various payments have been made by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 and 2.
8. Evidence led by plaintiff has gone absolutely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW1. If defendants want to establish paternity of plaintiff with respect to defendant no. 3, they must avail legal remedies available to them, rather than sending threatening messages to plaintiff and his wife. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to decree of injunction, as sought in first two prayer clauses.
9. Plaintiff has also sought award of compensation regarding mental harassment and trauma. However, the same has not been quantified by plaintiff. Also, no particular evidence has been led by plaintiff in this regard. Further, in order to claim compensation on account of defamation, plaintiff ought to have filed civil suit for defamation claiming damages and should have led specific evidence in that regard. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to award of any damages in his favour.
10. In view of the above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and defendants are restrained from alleging before plaintiff and his wife and in public domain that defendant no. 3 is the daughter of plaintiff and they are also restrained from making any public statements in this regard CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 6 of 7 against the plaintiff.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open (RAJAT GOYAL)
court on 28.01.2023 JSCC-ASCJ-GJ (South)
Saket Courts, Delhi.
CS SCJ 121/21 DR. ASHOK CHOUDHARY VS. SMT. JEENA JOSEPH & ORS. Page no. 7 of 7