Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.Further, the revision petitioner had filed the caveat petitions before the High Court of Madras on 07.03.2008, High Court of Delhi on 19.02.2008, High Court of Bombay on 11.02.2008 and High Court of Calcutta on 31.01.2008. The first respondent suppressed the above said facts and filed the present suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai by way of forum-shopping. The first respondent has not produced an iota of evidence in their entire plaint to show that the revision petitioner has caused the impugned advertisement. Further, the first respondent has miserably failed to disclose the cause of action against the revision petitioner and hence, the suit is liable to be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. Further, the first respondent has created illusionary cause of action, which is not permitted in law. The first respondent neither pleaded any damages nor the damage sustained was in Chennai. Merely, the Branch Office is in Chennai, no cause of action arose at Chennai, since the main Corporate Head Office is located in Mumbai. The first respondent has conveniently avoided impleading the main Corporate Office in Mumbai as necessary party in the suit. Further, the first respondent has chosen to proceed directly to this Court for reliefs, without exhausting possible forum (i.e.) ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India). From the above said reasons stated in the application, the revision petitioner sought for the relief of rejection of the plaint.

9.The second respondent in the above said application in I.A.No.10399 of 2008 has not filed any counter.

10.The first respondent in the above said application in I.A.No.10399 of 2008 filed a counter, in which, it has denied various averments made in the affidavit by stating that the application was filed only with malafide intention. It is also averred in the counter that the first respondent filed the suit before the V Additional City Civil Court on 22.04.2008 and after hearing the first respondent, the Court has passed an exparte interim injunction and ordered notice to the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein and the application was posted on 29.04.2008. Immediately, the revision petitioner filed a vakalath and also preferred C.R.P(PD)No.1639 of 2008 before the High Court, Madras on 24.04.2008. This Court has vacated the exparte interim injunction granted by the trial Court only on the ground that reasons have not been specified in the interim injunction order passed on 22.04.2008. The revision petitioner has not chosen to file any reply to the interim application or to the suit. After the lapse of three months from the above said proceedings ended, this application is filed by the revision petitioner only to delay the proceedings and therefore, on the sole ground, the present application is liable to be dismissed. The allegations in the application are outside the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. The above said provision can be invoked, only if a plain reading of the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Therefore, the purported concealment of unconnected proceedings, which have no relevance to the subject matter of the present suit, cannot be a ground for seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. In the present suit, on a bare reading of the plaint, it is apparent that the first respondent has unequivocally disclosed a cause of action i.e. the damage being caused to the reputation, goodwill and brand image to HARPIC range of products. Further, the present suit is not barred by any law. The allegation of the revision petitioner that the first respondent has suppressed the material facts, is wholly false. It is settled law that each and every act of defamation/disparagement gives a fresh cause of action. The suit filed before the High Court Delhi on 14.12.2007 relates to a different advertisement and also there is no relevance to the present suit. The present suit was filed by the first respondent in April 2008 after telecast of the impugned advertisement by the revision petitioner. Further, the revision petitioner has not filed any caveat before the City Civil Court, Chennai. Admittedly, the impugned advertisement is being telecasted in several channels including Tamil channels like, Sun TV, Jaya TV, which are viewed by consumers in Chennai. In addition, the advertisement is displayed in the website of the second respondent, which can be viewed from Chennai and a specific averment in this regard is made in the plaint. Under similar circumstances, the first respondent had pleaded the cause of action, which arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the V Additional City Civil Court. The revision petitioner had filed another suit in C.S.No.1128 of 2008 before the High Court, Madras, even though the Corporate Office of the first respondent is located in Gurgaon, Haryana. In terms of Section 20(c) CPC, the suits can be instituted, where the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. The revision petitioner had already filed a suit in C.S.No.1128 of 2008 before the High Court Madras, without approaching ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India). ASCI(Advertising Standards Council of India)does not have the power to enforce its orders or award damages. In addition, there is no mandatory requirement to approach ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India). The filing of the suit before the City Civil Courts, Madras is not prohibited under any law. The present application is filed by the revision petitioner with malafide intention and to delay the proceedings and therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the application in the counter filed by the first respondent.

11.The trial Court has discussed about the averments made in the plaint, particularly in paragraph Nos.10,15 and 16 of the plaint and finally, held that the cause of action against the revision petitioner and the second respondent arose at Chennai. It has further held that as per Section 20 CPC, if any cause of action arose wholly or in part, the parties are entitled to file the suit and in the instant case, the cause of action in part arose in Chennai and also Chennai address was given by the revision petitioner and hence, the provision under Section 20 CPC are complied with. The trial Court also held that the revision petitioner has not established that the action of the first respondent was barred by any law, even though the other forums are available to take the matter for adjudication like, the MRTP Commission or ASCI(Advertising Standards Council of India). Further, the trial Court has held that under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, the City Civil Court, wherein the suit was filed, is having jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court has further held that the revision petitioner himself admitted that the various suits are pending before various High Courts including High Court, Madras. The revision petitioner has not pleaded as the present suit in O.S.No.2901 of 2008 was barred by res judicata and in the above said circumstances, the plaint cannot be rejected as per the provisions Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and finally, the trial Court has dismissed the above said application in I.A.No.10399 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner.

12.Aggrieved over the above said dismissal order passed by the trial Court, this revision petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner.

13.Points for consideration in this revision petition is that whether the findings of the trial Court are perverse and illegal or the dismissal order passed by the trial Court is valid in law?

14.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the first respondent has failed to disclose any cause of action either for alleged advertisement to be disparaging or for sustained damages and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected in-limine. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the entire plaint, the first respondent has described about its HARPIC product and the advertisement telecasted by the second respondent and nowhere in the plaint, the first respondent herein mentioned that the impugned advertisement causes or had caused damage to it in support of its claim for damages to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- and therefore, no cause of action has been pleaded by the first respondent to sustain its claim for damages and on that ground also the suit is liable to be rejected in limine. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further pointed out that the City Civil Court, wherein the suit was filed, had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, since both the first respondent and the second respondent are situated at Delhi and Mumbai respectively beyond the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the plaint, there is no plea or allegation that the revision petitioner's branch office is in Chennai, which had caused the release of the impugned advertisement, but, the Chennai Office had been wilfully mentioned as the first defendant in the plaint and therefore, the suit was filed by the first respondent by way of forum shopping. Further, the learned counsel submitted that anticipating suits to be filed by the first respondent, the revision petitioner had filed caveats before the Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, Calcutta High Court and also Madras High Court, but the first respondent, suppressing the above said facts, filed this suit before the City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained the exparte order of injunction. The revision petitioner had also preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD)No.1639 of 2008, in which, the above said interim exparte injunction was set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the settled position in law is that the grievance with regard to the advertisement, would only lie before the MRTP Commission and ASCI and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider all the decisions relied on by the revision petitioner has not been properly considered by the trial Court and hence, the order of the trial Court dismissing the application in I.A.No.10399 of 2008 in O.S.No.2901 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside.