A defamation suit must specify defamatory statements and their damaging nature; vague allegations do not establish a valid cause of action, warranting dismissal only if no triable issues arise.

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 c