Judgment-

AHMADI

( 1 ) DR. Subramaniam Swamy, the defendant in Suit No. 945/89 pending on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, has filed this petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code hereafter) read with Order 35 I-B of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, praying for the transfer of the aforesaid suit from the Bombay High Court to any Civil Court in Karnataka, preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore, on the ground of forum non-convenience.

( 2 ) THE respondent Shri Ramakrishna Hegde has filed the aforesaid suit in the Bombay High Court claiming a sum of Rupees one crore by way of damages for injury caused to his reputation by the publication/imputation of certain alleged defamatory statements made by the petitioner at a Press Conference held in New Delhi on 10/01/1988 which was attended by several members of the Press and media specially invited to the said Conference. The allegation in the plaint is that the petitioner levelled several accusations against the. respondent at the said Press Conference which were widely circulated/ reported in the newspapers of 11/01/1989. These allegations have been catalogued in clauses (a) to (p) of paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is also alleged that the petitioner had also issued a written statement containing allegations set out in clauses (q) to (y) of paragraph 5 of the plaint and followed it up by further similar allegations made on 12/01/1989 and Ja 27/01/1989, all of which are per se defamatory. We need not set out the allegations forming the basis of the suit as they are not relevant for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the suit filde by the respondent in the Bombay High Court is for damages for injury. caused to his reputation.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a politician who is serving his fourth term as a Member of Parliament and is presently a Member of the Rajya Sabha having been elected to that office on a Janta Party ticket sometime in March, 1988. He claims to have served on various Investigative Committees of Parliament, to have received his Doctorate from the Harvard University in USA where he later taught for almost a decade and to have published more than 150 books, articles and research papers on various aspects of Indian policy including economic policy of the country. On account of this background, contends the petitioner, he was able to understand, analyse and expose the details of the respondents various acts of corruption, favouritism and nepotism committed during his tenure as Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, at the Press Conference of 10/01/1989. In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner states that he "accepts the publication of the allegations complained of by the respondent. " It is thus seen that the factum of publication of the allegations is not in dispute.

( 4 ) THE petitioner, however, contends that the most appropriate place for the trial of the suit filed by the respondent is the State of Karnataka where the various acts complained of were committed by the respondent from time to time during his tenure as the Chief Minister of the State. The grounds in support of the petitioners contention may be summarised as follows: the petitioners father maintains a family house in Bangalore; all the events that provide the defence to the litigation took place in Karnataka at Bangalore; the entire documentary evidence touching the alleged acts being in official files and in private custody would be easily available in Bangalore; most of the witnesses who are in know of the respondents wrongs are residents of Karnataka, more particularly Bangalore, the discovery and inspection of documents can be conveniently had in Bangalore where they are available. , the evidence pertaining to telephone tappings done at the behest of the respondent would be available in Karnataka, Bangalore and since the people of Karnataka ,are vitally interested in the outcome of this litigation, it is essential that the suit should be