ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sudharshan Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1442/2022 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH–69) is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent No.1 against the revision petitioner and other defendants with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY GRACIOUSLY BE PLEASED TO: a) declare that the content of the program as telecast by all the Defendant News channels, through various modes and platform that is more fully described in the aforesaid paragraphs and appended as Document 1 Series is malicious and defamatory to the plaintiff, L A Ravi Subramanya; b) declare that the acts and conduct of the defendants that have led to the publications through various modes and platforms on 29 May 2021 & such other subsequent dates more fully described in the aforesaid paragraphs and appended as Document 1 Series were malicious and have contributed to the defamation of the Plaintiff, LA Ravi Subramanya; c) to decree jointly and severally against the defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff, LA Ravi Subramanya, a fair and just compensation of a sum of Rs. 3 Crores (Rupees Three Crores only) or such higher sum as represents, in the opinion and estimate of this Hon'ble Court, compensatory damages to redress the injury to the reputation of the Plaintiff, L A Ravi Subramanya; d) to award exemplary or punitive damages upon such of the defendants in respect of such conduct as may be ascertained in this proceeding to merit such imposition with a view to answer the malice and recklessness exhibited by such of the defendants to injure the reputation of the Plaintiff, L A Ravi Subramanya; e) to award special damages upon such of the defendants as warranted upon presentment by the Plaintiff of evidence in that regard in the course of this proceeding; f) Order the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of prosecuting the current cause of action at such rate as suitably assessed by this Hon'ble Court; g) Pass any other order or to grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem just, equitable and necessary in the interest of securing justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE HUMBLE PLAINTIFF AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.” 3.2. In the suit, it is contented that suit for damages occurring due to the willful commission of the tort of defamation committed by the defendants who is a sitting member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly on the false facts. In other words, what has been the basis for the plaintiff to claim the defamation is an audio clipping which got surfaced and circulated in the news channels. 3.3. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement to the effect that there was no action that is attributable to defendant No.4 inasmuch as the audio clipping got surfaced on account of the plaintiff addressing the press that the said audio clipping is false wherein the voice of social worker/Sri.Venkatesh is found. 3.4. Defendant No.4 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint and in the affidavit, in support of said application, it has been contented that suit is wholly frivolous, vexatious and filed with a sole intention of suppressing the voices against the illegality. 3.5. It is also contended that suit is barred by law as there is no cause of action against any of the defendants especially against the revision petitioner. 3.6. 3.5. It is also contended that suit is barred by law as there is no cause of action against any of the defendants especially against the revision petitioner. 3.6. It is further contented that plaint did not disclose cause of action and therefore, plaint is to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Further, defendant No.4 contented that the allegations found in the plaint are vague in nature about the defamation and therefore, there is no cause of action. 3.7. It is also contended that numerous articles are being published and therefore, without specifically stating in what way tweets/articles and contents of the same are defamatory in the plaint and therefore, suit for defamation is not maintainable. 3.8. It is also contended that plaintiff failed to identify any particular publication which is defamatory either by name or publication or author or contents and therefore, reading of entire plaint does not make out a cause of action to maintain the suit. 3.9. Defendant No.4 also contended that there is no specific mention as to the fact that defendant No.4 is the author of publication, which is defamatory in nature and therefore, plaint is to be rejected. 3.10. It is also contended that clever drafting in the plaint would not create a cause of action to file the suit and it is illusory in nature. 3.11. Further, defendant No.4 contented that the allegations leveled against the defendants particularly defendant No.4 is baseless and without any proof. 3.12. It is also contended by defendant No.4 that Article dated 29.05.2021 titled as ‘yet another BJP COVID- 19 controversy in Bengaluru, MLA accused of blocking vaccines’ is published by defendant No.4 as document No.1 series to the plaint is no doubt published by defendant No.4, but it is not defamatory. 3.13. It is maintained that said article is published by maintaining the balance and well thought out and there are no imputation as to the character of the plaintiff. 3.14. Further, defendant No.4 contended that defendant No.4 is operating within its legitimate sphere of activity protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and therefore, suit for defamation is per se not maintainable. 3.15. 3.14. Further, defendant No.4 contended that defendant No.4 is operating within its legitimate sphere of activity protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and therefore, suit for defamation is per se not maintainable. 3.15. The plaint was also sought to be rejected on the ground of Order VII Rule 11(d) by contending that Order II Rule 2 of CPC where there is no scope for joinder of cause of action has been made in the suit and therefore, suit needs to be rejected. 3.16. Plaintiff opposed the application seeking rejection of the plaint by filing detailed written objections. 4. Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the application filed by defendant No.4. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.4 is before this Court, in this revision, on following grounds: - The Trial Court has failed to consider that a suit for defamation must set out the allegedly defamatory words and also set out how the said words are false or defamatory and specifically plead how each allegedly defamatory word has lowered the reputation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of the public. A mere reproduction of numerous articles without stating in what way the articles and the materials in the articles are defamatory, would result in the plaint being rejected for failure to disclose cause of action. None of the above requirements have been made out by the Respondent No. 1 in the Plaint. The Respondent No. 1 has not, anywhere in the Plaint, set out the allegedly defamatory works in any of the articles published by it or explained the defamatory nature of these publications. Hence, the Trial Court has entirely failed to recognize that the Respondent No. 1's Plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Petitioner and the other Defendant media houses. - The Trial Court has failed to effectively consider the submissions of the Petitioner in the Application and has passed the Impugned Order in an entirely mechanical manner. The Impugned Order does not record any reasoning for rejection of the claims in the Application, reflecting non-application of mind by the Trial Court in passing the Impugned Order. - The Trial Court has failed to effectively consider the submissions of the Petitioner in the Application and has passed the Impugned Order in an entirely mechanical manner. The Impugned Order does not record any reasoning for rejection of the claims in the Application, reflecting non-application of mind by the Trial Court in passing the Impugned Order. - The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Respondent No. 1 ought to have disclosed sufficient materials for a definite cause of action to sustain the Plaint, as the Respondent No. 1 has failed to identify any particular publication that it claims is "defamatory" either by name, date of publication, author or contents. A conjoint reading of the entire Plaint throws no light on the cause of action for the filing of the Suit or the publications that are allegedly defamatory. - The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that on a plain reading of the Plaint, it does not make out any cause of action against any of the Defendants therein, much less the Petitioner and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code. It is settled law that substance in the Plaint must be examined and not merely the form, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The Respondent No. 1 has merely made bald allegations of defamation and has produced numerous articles without specifically stating in what way the tweets/articles and the contents of the same are defamatory. - It is humbly submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the intention of the Respondent No. 1 to censure, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the costs of legal defence. Further, by not setting out how the articles/tweets are defamatory to the reputation of the Respondent No. 1 and by merely producing copies of such tweets/articles, the Respondent No. 1 is seeking to use deception and clever drafting to create the illusion of a cause of action. It is settled law that if the Plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, i.e., it does not disclose a clear right to sue, the Plaint must be rejected, and the courts must be wary of clever drafting, which creates the illusion of a cause of action. It is settled law that if the Plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, i.e., it does not disclose a clear right to sue, the Plaint must be rejected, and the courts must be wary of clever drafting, which creates the illusion of a cause of action. - Further, the Trial Court has erred in observing that the Petitioner has contended in the Application that the Suit is barred by law of Limitation, and the same must require a trial to ascertain. From the reading of Application (or even the Written Statement of the Petitioner), it is clear that the Petitioner has not raised any contention with regard to the Plaint being barred by the law of Limitation. This only further evidences that the Impugned Order suffers from a complete non- application of mind as the Trial Court has considered averments that had not been raised by the petitioners while rejecting I.A. No. 1. - The Trial Court has also failed to consider that the Respondent No. 1 has attempted to combine several of his purported grievances against various persons and media houses, in relation to various distinct tweets and publications published by each of them, in one common suit. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in cases where several causes of action arise, they may be united in the same suit against multiple defendants only if the several causes of action all pertain to all the defendants collectively and form part of a cogent continuum of events that indicate culpability on the part of all Defendants all of the several causes of action that the Suit alleges. However, such is not the case in the instant Suit, as each article published by an individual Defendant will constitute a distinct cause of action which cannot be combined or considered to form a continuum of events. Despite the specific pleadings of the Petitioner, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Plaint is bad for misjoinder of various distinct (alleged) causes-of action, which is wholly impermissible under Order II Rule 3 of the Code and therefore, the Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code as being barred by law. - In fact, the Trial Court has failed to even consider the arguments put forth by the Petitioner with respect to the Plaint being barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. A perusal of the Impugned Order reveals that while the Trial Court has provided a cursory consideration of the arguments of the Petitioner on the Plaint falling to disclose a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a), the Impugned Order has not even mentioned, much less considered, the contention of the Petitioner in the Application that the Plaint is barred by the provisions of law for misjoinder of parties and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code. - The Trial Court has erroneously observed that the averments made by the Petitioner that the instant Suit discloses no cause of action have to be considered at the final disposal of the case. In doing so, not only has the Trial Court failed to appreciate the true contours of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code which is designed to test the requirements of the Plaint at an early stage before trial, the Trial Court has also ignored the mandatory nature of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code by making this observation. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that for adjudicating on the grounds urged, no trial is required, in as much as the facts pertaining to the grounds urged are admitted and do not require trial. - Further, the Trial Court has also erroneously recorded that they cannot look into the averments in a Defendant's written statement at the time of deciding an application for rejection of the Plaint, while the Petitioner has not sought to rely on its written statement at any juncture. The apparent recording of contentions which were not raised by any of the parties and the failure to consider or record sufficient reasons on the contentions which were actually put forth before the court reflects the mechanical nature of the Impugned Order and the non application of mind in passing the Order. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.4 reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the Trial Court misdirected itself in understanding the scope of application and has passed a mechanical order resulting in miscarriage of justice. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.4 reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the Trial Court misdirected itself in understanding the scope of application and has passed a mechanical order resulting in miscarriage of justice. 7. He would further contend that the contentions urged in the affidavit is not taken note of by the learned Trial Judge and has dismissed the application recording the finding on the ground of limitation which was not even urged by defendant No.4, which shows that there is no judicious application of mind in the impugned order and sought for allowing the revision. 8. He also contends that plaint does not contain necessary particulars to term the article published by defendant No.4 as defamatory and therefore, plaint is to be rejected. 9. He also contended that the clarification given by the very plaintiff actually broke the news and therefore, publishing the news is only after the plaintiff bringing it to the notice of the public about the incident and thus per se not defamatory. 10. He would also contend that plaintiff being the public figure; cannot maintain a suit for defamation on an article which is only bringing it to the notice of the general public that too based on the interview given by him about the alleged audio clipping said to have been circulated by one social activist by name Sri. Venkatesh. Therefore, defendant No.4 cannot be held responsible for the act of defamation and therefore, plaint is to be rejected. 11. Lastly, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there are several defendants who have been made as party in the plaint and such a joint action for defamation is impermissible and suit is thus bad for mis-joinder of causes of action and therefore, plaint ought to have been rejected. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is filed for declaration, injunction as well as defamation. 15. Plaintiff being a sitting member of the legislative assembly; when certain allegations are leveled against him and an audio clipping went viral; he gave a clarification in the press. The same has been re-published, re-circulated by several news channels. 16. 15. Plaintiff being a sitting member of the legislative assembly; when certain allegations are leveled against him and an audio clipping went viral; he gave a clarification in the press. The same has been re-published, re-circulated by several news channels. 16. Defendant No.4 is one such person who has carried an article. Whether the article contained true facts or well within the sphere of freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be decided at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC by holding a mini trial. 17. Second point that is urged by the revision petitioner is that the plaintiff himself made the issue viral while speaking to media and thus revision petitioner cannot be held liable for defamation. 18. All that the plaintiff has made clear in the press is that audio clipping is incorrect. As such, there was no question of plaintiff being responsible for the news item to become viral. 19. Thirdly, if the plaint does not contain proper particulars; the course that is open for defendant No.4 is to file an application under the provisions of ‘Code of Civil Procedure’ calling for better particulars or interrogatories. Such a defence cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. 20. For the purpose of appreciation on the case on hand, Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is culled out hereunder: “11. Such a defence cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. 20. For the purpose of appreciation on the case on hand, Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is culled out hereunder: “11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] 2[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] 3[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” 21. Application is admittedly filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. 22. As could be seen from the above discussion, aforesaid grounds are not the grounds for rejection of the plaint. 23. Fourthly, the cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as under: “The cause of action arose on the first telecast of the defamatory program and that would be from 29 May 2021 & other subsequent dates when the matter was repeatedly aired, broadcasted, telecasted, printed & such other means of publications by the Defendants herein. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of 1 year within which an action as at present could be instituted. Accordingly, on the date of presentment of this plaint, this suit is within the prescribed period of limitation.” 24. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of 1 year within which an action as at present could be instituted. Accordingly, on the date of presentment of this plaint, this suit is within the prescribed period of limitation.” 24. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that cause of action in a given suit is a bundle of facts. When there is a fact that has been propounded by the plaintiff and denied by defendant No.4, it raises a triable issue. 25. Such a triable issue needs to be trashed out, by allowing the parties to place necessary material evidence on record in a full –fledged trial. What has been contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to check and arrest the mischievous or frivolous suits. 26. To label the suit as frivolous and mischievous, no material is forthcoming in the affidavit filed by defendant No.4 in support of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 27. The last contention of the revision petitioner is that several defendants have been included in the suit and therefore, under such circumstances, suit for defamation is not maintainable. 28. In other words, defendant No.4 is pressing into service the plea of mis-joinder of causes of action. At the most, it would be an issue in the suit to be tried in the main suit. 29. Therefore, none of the grounds that has been urged on behalf of the revision petitioner hold merits in advancing the case of defendant No.4 in seeking the rejection of the plaint to any extent. Therefore, dismissal of the application is just and proper. 30. However, the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the application is incorrect and there is a slight force in the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that the order looks mechanical in nature. 31. No doubt, when all the grounds that has been urged on behalf of the revision petitioner having been taken note of by this Court and having been answered in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court does not inclined to consider the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order needs be set aside and matter be remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 32. Thus, from the above discussions, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. 32. Thus, from the above discussions, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. However, it is made clear that the right of defendant No.4 to urge all necessary defences is kept open to be canvassed during the trial in accordance with law.