Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 818 (MAD)

S. Abdul Subhan v. A. R. Mahaboob Jani

2007-03-05

S.RAJESWARAN

body2007
Judgment : 1. This Application has been filed by plaintiff to grant leave to institute a Suit against the defendant in this Court. 2. The plaintiff is the applicant seeking leave of this Court to institute a Suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 3. The Suit is filed against the defendant residing at Arakonam, Vellore District, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,05,000/- as compensation towards defamation caused to his reputation. As the cause of action arose within this Courts jurisdiction where the defamatory notices dated 2. 2005 and 13. 2005 sent by the defendant were received by the plaintiff in Chennai and the copies were sent to the Chief Ministers cell in Chennai, the plaintiff filed the above Suit before this Court and the above Application has been filed for granting leave. 4. This Court on 7. 2005 ordered notice and the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his counter affidavit opposing this Application. 5. It is stated by the defendant in the counter affidavit that no wrong has been committed by the defendant within the jurisdiction of this Court. Mere receipt of notices at Chennai would not give jurisdiction to file a Suit for damages unless the resultant damages caused at Chennai. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the above Application. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The plaintiff filed the above Suit for the following reliefs: "(a) directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,05,000.00 as compensation towards defamation caused to the plaintiff with interest thereon at 12% p.a., from the date of plaint till the date of payment; (b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant from continuing her activities in writing, oral or in any other means of communications containing insinuating and defamatory language and disparaging remarks attributing the plaintiff in any form." 8. The case of the plaintiff is that he is working as a Deputy Secretary in the Agricultural Department of the Secretariat. Government of Tamil Nadu. He has acquired a high reputation in the official circle and decent and respectable status among friends and muslim community as a whole. 9. While so the defendant who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiffs sisters daughter issued a legal notice on 2. 2005 to her daughter-in-law alleging influence, coercion and threat put forward by the plaintiff on her to sign a document. 9. While so the defendant who is the mother-in-law of the plaintiffs sisters daughter issued a legal notice on 2. 2005 to her daughter-in-law alleging influence, coercion and threat put forward by the plaintiff on her to sign a document. A copy of this notice was sent to the Chief Ministers grievance cell. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 12. 2005 to the defendant to withdraw the defamatory allegations and to tender an unconditional apology. To this notice dated 12. 2005, the defendant sent a reply notice dated 13. 2005 containing serious and vituperative language to continue the defamation against the plaintiff. A copy of this reply dated 13. 2005 was also sent to the Chief Ministers cell. This put the plaintiff to mental torture and he was made to give an explanatory statement dated 14. 2005 to the Chief Secretary. 10. With the above averments the Suit has been filed and as the defendant is residing at Arakonam, Vellore District, the plaintiff sought leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent. 11. Clause 12 of Letters Patent permits the plaintiff to file a Suit before this Court if the cause of action has arisen either wholly or in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court 12. Therefore the only question that arises for consideration is whether a part of the cause of action has arisen within the local limits of this Court to grant leave to the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff’s notice dated 12. 2005 to the defendant directing her to withdraw the defamatory allegations she made in the legal notice dated 2. 2005 was sent from Chennai and the copy of the legal notice dated 2. 2005 was also sent to the Chief Ministers Grievance Cell at Chennai. Further the reply notice dated 13. 2005 was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff who received the same in Chennai. A copy of this reply dated 13. 2005 was also sent by the defendant to the Chief Ministers Grievance Cell in Chennai. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that he was made to give an explanatory statement dated 14. 2005 to the Chief Secretary, in Chennai. 14. A copy of this reply dated 13. 2005 was also sent by the defendant to the Chief Ministers Grievance Cell in Chennai. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that he was made to give an explanatory statement dated 14. 2005 to the Chief Secretary, in Chennai. 14. In such circumstances there is definitely a part of cause of action that arose within the local limits of this Court and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to be granted leave to institute the Suit. But the learned counsel for the defendant placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in National Westminster Bank Ltd. U.K. v. M/s Devraj Nensee & Co. & others, 1997 (1) LW 117 , contended that there is no cause of action to institute the above Suit. 15. In National Westnnnister Bank Ltd. U.K. v. M/s Devraj Nensee & Co. & others, 1997 (1) LW 117 this Court held that it is the action of the defendant that gives a plaintiff a cause of action and on the materials produced, the plaintiff must have a right to sue and that must have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 16. The above decision rather than supporting the case of the defendant in fact, supporting the case of the plaintiff. In the present case, the action of the defendant in sending a defamatory statement about the plaintiff to him, which was received in Chennai gave the cause of action for the plaintiff, the right to file the above Suit. 17. In the result, the Application is allowed as prayed for. No costs.