JUDGMENT : M.V. MURALIDARAN, J. 1. Heard the submissions of Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, representing Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the above Civil Suit No.282 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant herein, its associates, sister concerns, its agents, representatives, correspondents, officers, employees and/or any other person claiming through it, entity, in print or electronic media or via internet or otherwise from publishing, republishing, carrying out any further reports or articles or any other matter telecasts or repeat telecasts or programs, or debates or any discussion or reporting of any kind, directly or indirectly, pertaining to alleged NEWS of immoral conduct of the Applicant/Plaintiff herein. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 10.05.2016 as a lunch motion, upon hearing the learned senior counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, this court ordered notice to the Respondent/Defendant and posted the case today 11.05.2016 at 10.15 a.m. Pursuant to the notice, on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant, the learned senior Counsel Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan appeared and filed a memo stating that the Election Commissioner has sent a notice dated 09.05.2016 to the Respondent/Defendant and the notice is stated as follows: “TAMIL” “That based on the above said notice issued by the Election Commissioner dated 09.05.2016, the Respondent/Defendant has stopped telecasting the news report immediately from 09.05.2016 and to that effect he has also filed a Memo before this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that nothing survives for adjudication in the present Application No.408 of 2016 as well as the main suit.” 5. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the Respondent/Defendant that the name of the Respondent/Defendant has wrongly been mentioned in the suit as well as the application. In fact the name described in the cause title is not the trade name and the trade name of the defendant is M/s. Mavis Satcom Limited. On the basis of such memo, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prayed for amending the cause title in the suit as well as the application by incorporating the name of the defendant as M/s. Mavis Satcom Limited. In the light of the above submission, the memo filed by the respondent/defendant is accepted and the Plaintiff is permitted to amend the cause title in the suit as well as the application accordingly. 6. In the light of the above submission, the memo filed by the respondent/defendant is accepted and the Plaintiff is permitted to amend the cause title in the suit as well as the application accordingly. 6. As regards the relief sought for in the suit, since the defendant has stopped telecasting the news publication from 09.05.2016, nothing survives in the suit for adjudication by this Court. 7. Before parting with, it has to be observed that in a democratic set up, the general trend is to criticise the political parties for their action through press and electronic media. Such criticism should be a healthy criticism and it forms an healthy trend in a democratic set up as recognised under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. However, some times such criticisms are made and extended to include the personal life and conduct of the political parties which inevitably intrudes into one's reputation and privacy which he or she would have earned all these years. In fact, the complaint alleged against the plaintiff has been taken note of the by the Election Commission and to curb the telecasting of the complaint against the plaintiff, the Election Commission has intervened and issued a notice purportedly on the ground that publication of news item relating to the conduct of the defendant in public life is not warranted. Therefore, in a healthy political set up it is expected that criticism should be fair and reasonable. Any criticism or any news which may invade into the reputation or privacy of a political leader is not permissible. It is an essential facets under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The press/media should also be cautious enough and ensure the same is not resorted to since their report should be within the frame work and standards laid down. Apart from this, it should not be forgotten that if the private life of an individual is criticized or discussed in the press/media it would not only affect the individual but also his family members and others associated with him in the public life. Therefore, the press/media should exercise more caution in publishing any news items relating to the private life of a persons. 8. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed as having become infructuous by recording the memo filed by the Respondent/Defendant to the effect that the publication in question has been stopped from 09.05.2016. Therefore, the press/media should exercise more caution in publishing any news items relating to the private life of a persons. 8. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed as having become infructuous by recording the memo filed by the Respondent/Defendant to the effect that the publication in question has been stopped from 09.05.2016. There is no order as to costs.