JUDGMENT : 1. A non-party in the suit, has approached this Court in this public interest writ petition, with a prayer inter alia to quash an order passed by a Civil Court on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in a suit. 2. Petitioner claiming to dedicate itself to bring reforms in conducting elections in a free and fair basis has presented this writ petition with following prayers: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 29.03.2019 passed on IA No.1 of 2019 in OS 2526 of 2019 by the Learned XIX Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru which is at Annexure A; (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent No.1 to enforce the norms and modalities in respect of publication of information and opinion about the contesting candidates that it has already laid down; (c) Pass such further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity." 3. We have heard Shri. B.N. Harish, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for second respondent. 4. Second respondent filed a suit registered as O.S. No.2526/2019 in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against various newspaper publishing houses, TV channels, Whatsapp, Youtube, Facebook, etc. The averments contained in the plaint disclose that plaintiff is fielded as a candidate to contest election from Bangalore South Lok Sabha Constituency in the ensuing elections. It is averred that certain people who are inimically disposed towards him were making efforts to tarnish his image by circulating false messages produced in document No.1 annexed to the plaint. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from telecasting, transmitting, publishing, distributing, sharing any material with the print media, newspaper, TV channels, local cable operators etc., any false, malicious, defamatory and derogatory news concerning to the plaintiff directly or indirectly. The learned Trial Judge has passed following order: ORDER "As per I.A.No.1, Ad-interim ex-parte T.I. is granted against defendants and defendants. The learned Trial Judge has passed following order: ORDER "As per I.A.No.1, Ad-interim ex-parte T.I. is granted against defendants and defendants. (Sic.) The defendants are hereby restrained from making defamatory statements against the plaintiff in any manner in electronic or printing media as prayed in I.A.No.1 till defendants appear and file their objections to I.A.No.1. The plaintiff shall comply with Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC. Issue suit summons, emergent notice of I.A.No.1 and Ad-interim ex-parte T.I. Order to all the defendants if P.F. paid within 3 working days from the date of this order." Returnable by 27/5/2019 Sd/- XIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Blore. 5. Petitioner has assailed the interim order passed by the learned City Civil Judge mainly on the following grounds: that the voters/citizen form the most vital part of Democracy. Democracy expects openness which is a hallmark of a free Society. The right to get information is a natural right flowing from Democracy. In the absence of relevant information, voters will be casting votes based on one sided information; the purpose of Press is to advance public interest by publishing facts and opinion without which electorate cannot make a responsible judgment. The impugned order restraining the Press and publication of news is violative of 'Freedom of Press' enshrined in the Constitution. 6. Shri. Harish, submitted that the impugned order is in the form of a 'gag order' and it has 'chilling effect' on free flow of information. He relied upon following authorities in support of his case: Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 State Through Special Cell, New Delhi, (2003) 6 SCC 641 R. Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and another, (1994) 6 SCC 632 Brij Bhushan and another Vs. State of Delhi, (1950) AIR SC 129 7. Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff (second respondent) contended that: petitioner is not a party in the suit; no order is passed against the petitioner; a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an order passed in a Civil suit between private parties in an inter party lis. He placed reliance on the following authorities: A.K. Subbaiah Vs. B.N. Garudachar, (1987) ILR(Kar) 100 Magna Publishers Co. Ltd., and others Vs. Shilpa S. Shetty, (2007) 12 SCC 792 Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 8. He placed reliance on the following authorities: A.K. Subbaiah Vs. B.N. Garudachar, (1987) ILR(Kar) 100 Magna Publishers Co. Ltd., and others Vs. Shilpa S. Shetty, (2007) 12 SCC 792 Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that, the impugned order is in the form of a 'gag order' and obstructs disclosure of complete information about the contesting candidate which vitiates the process of free and fair election. 10. The documents annexed to the plaint, copies of which were made available by Shri. Harish for the petitioner include tweets in social media. One of the tweet is by a rival political party, which is in furtherance to a tweet made by one Dr. Som Dutta. 11. Shri. Ashok Haranahalli's contention is that the said Dr.Som Dutta has subsequently tweeted stating that she would not allow political parties to use her tweet for their agenda. Thus he argued that the author of the tweet has no grievance. Nonetheless rival political parties are likely to take undue advantage. Therefore, plaintiff is justified in filing the suit and seeking temporary injunction. 12. The cause of action described in the plaint is the statements which the plaintiff claims to have read. A careful perusal of plaint and annexed documents shows that the tweet made by Dr. Som Dutta and responses to the said tweet in the social media has prompted the plaintiff to file the suit. It is averred in paragraph No.7 that keeping in view the ensuing election, persons inimically disposed towards plaintiff are making efforts to tarnish his image. In paragraph No.12, it is averred that if defendants start telecasting or publishing false and manipulated contents, the same would cause irreparable loss to plaintiff's reputation. 13. It is relevant to note that calendar of events have been issued and the election process for Lok Sabha Election is in progress. Shri. Harish, learned Advocate is right in his submission that voters have a right to know all information about all contesting candidates. 14. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' to every citizen. 15. The learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order has restrained the defendants from making 'defamatory statements' against the plaintiff. Shri. Harish, learned Advocate is right in his submission that voters have a right to know all information about all contesting candidates. 14. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' to every citizen. 15. The learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order has restrained the defendants from making 'defamatory statements' against the plaintiff. What is 'defamatory' can be tested and decided only if an act of making a statement or telecasting a program is challenged by the aggrieved person before an appropriate forum. 16. Therefore, in our view, the defendants are not prevented from publishing or telecasting any news item which is not defamatory in their opinion. In case plaintiff is aggrieved by any such publication or telecast of any news item, he may approach the Election Commission of India. We dispose of this writ petition with above observation. No costs.