Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 603 (MP)

RAMESH AGARWAL v. KAPIL SONKAR

2016-07-25

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2016
ORDER : VANDANA KASREKAR, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of parties at motion stage. The petitioner has filed this present revision challenging the order dated 03/03/2015 passed by VIII ADJ, Indore in civil suit No.1-B/2014 whereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for damages against the present petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of an article published on 25/03/2014 in the Indore Edition of the Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" which allegedly defamed the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No.1-B/2014 and same is filed on the ground that respondent No.1/plaintiff is a permanent resident of Indore City and belongs to a reputed family. Respondent No.1/plaintiff and his father is having a well known name in Indore City and nearby places. Respondent No.1/plaintiff is running a Hotel at Servate Bus Stand by name of Hotel Ranjeet. It is further alleged that petitioner/defendant No.1 is owner of daily Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar", Indore Edition, respondent No.2 is the Editor of said Newspaper, respondent No.3 is the publisher and printer of said Newspaper and respondent No.4 is local editor of the said Newspaper. Thus, all the defendants are responsible for the news published in the said Newspaper. 3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff further alleged that all the defendants conspired together to published defamatory news items to defame the plaintiff and to blackmail him. That petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC wherein it has been stated that petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the owner of Newspaper "Dainik Bhasker" described by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the plaint and the said fact is verifiable from the documents filed alongwith plaint. It has further been alleged in the application that petitioner/defendant No.1 has no involvement whatsoever and no control over the selection of the matter which is to be published in the Newspaper. The responsibility of selecting the matter to be published in any newspaper is that of the Editor. 4. Thus, petitioner/defendant No.1 is not at all responsible or liable for the alleged defamatory article published on 25/03/2014 in the Indore edition of the Newspaper "Dainik Bhasker". The responsibility of selecting the matter to be published in any newspaper is that of the Editor. 4. Thus, petitioner/defendant No.1 is not at all responsible or liable for the alleged defamatory article published on 25/03/2014 in the Indore edition of the Newspaper "Dainik Bhasker". The averments made in the plaint are extremely vague and clouded with unclear pleadings and do not at all spell out any cause of action against the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed the reply of the said application and the trial Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03/03/2015, this present revision petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that trial Court has erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. He submits that on the basis of plaint allegations as well as documents which has been filed alongwith plaint, no cause of action has arisen against the present petitioner/defendant No.1. It is further submitted that section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (which shall be referred here and after as "Act") whereby the Editor is the responsible for any item published in the Newspaper. He further argued that Section 7 of the Act enables the Court to draw a presumption that the person whose name was printed as Editor was Editor of such newspaper, if the publication produced in the Court shows to that effect and the in the present case since name of petitioner/defendant No.1 does not appear anywhere in the copy of newspaper as Owner or Editor, therefore, trial Court should have allowed the application of the present petitioner/defendant No.1 in the light of specific provisions of the Act. He further argued that on the basis of plaint and the allegations made in the plaint, no cause of action arises against the present petitioner/defendant No.1. He also submits that present petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the Owner of the said newspaper. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the matter of A. Arivandanadam v. T.V. Satyapal 1977 (4) SCC 467 and in the matter of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem 1989 (2) SCC 163 . 7. He also submits that present petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the Owner of the said newspaper. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the matter of A. Arivandanadam v. T.V. Satyapal 1977 (4) SCC 467 and in the matter of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem 1989 (2) SCC 163 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the impugned order passed by trial Court and submits that trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner/defendant No.1. He further submits that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is the Owner of the said newspaper and on the basis of plaint allegations prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner/defendant No.1 and, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner/defendant No.1. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Section 7 of the Act reads as under :- 7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence : "In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some Court empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declaration, [or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor] shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, [or printed on such newspaper, as the case may be] that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher (according as the words of the said declaration may be) of every portion of every [newspaper] whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the [newspaper] mentioned in the declaration, [or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced]". 10. As per the said Section, the Editor/Printer is responsible for any news published in the newspaper. From perusal of the document which is filed alongwith the plaint, prima facie it appears that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the Editor or Owner of the newspaper. 10. As per the said Section, the Editor/Printer is responsible for any news published in the newspaper. From perusal of the document which is filed alongwith the plaint, prima facie it appears that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the Editor or Owner of the newspaper. The plaint allegations are vague in nature and does not specify any cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No.1. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (Supra) in para 5 has held as under :- "We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realized what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good." 12. As well as in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) in para 12 has held as under :- "A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a fight to relief against the defendant. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a fight to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the fight sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a fight to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. 13. Thus, as per the aforesaid judgments, if no cause of action arises against the person, the said writ petition should have been dismissed on that ground itself. 14. In the present case, on the basis of plaint allegations as well as the documents filed alongwith plaint, it appears that there is no cause of action has arisen against the petitioner/defendant No.1, as the person is nor the Editor or the Owner of the newspaper. Thus, the petitioner/defendant No.1 cannot be held responsible for any defamatory news item published in the said newspaper. 15. The word Editor has been defined in Section 1 of the Act and as per the said Section Editor as well as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper. Thus, it is only Editor who is responsible for any article published in the newspaper. Thus, prima facie no document has filed to show that any cause of action has arisen against the present petitioner/defendant No.1. Hence, order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside and is hereby setaside. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. The civil suit shall be treated as dismissed, so far as the present petitioner/defendant No.1 is concerned. However, civil suit shall continue with the other defendants. 16. Accordingly, present civil revision stands disposed of. 17. C.C. as per rules.