The actions of an attorney in sending legal notices on behalf of clients do not constitute defamation unless substantial evidence of malfeasance is presented.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Sriranga, learned Senior Advocate for Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel the petitioners.

2. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. Being aggrieved by the Order passed on I.A No.9 filed by the fifth defendant with a prayer to delete the fifth defendant from the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs are before this Court.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Revision petition are as under:

A suit came to be filed by the revision petitioners against five defendants with the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the Defendants as follows:

(a) declare the action of the Defendants issuing notices dated 07.07.2014 as defamatory.

(b) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their workmen, servants, agents, henchmen and/or any person/s claiming through or under them, etc., from restraining them from issuing furthermore legal notices to the subsequent purchaser;

(c) direct the Defendants 1 to 5, jointly and/or severally, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) to the Plaintiffs as damages;

(d) To pass such further orders or grant such further relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances and on the facts of the this matter and:

(e) To grant costs of these proceedings.”

4. At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint, it has been contended as under:

“11. It is submitted that Defendant No.5 has acted on behalf of Defendants No. 2 to 4 in all the above mentioned proceedings and is personally aware of all the above mentioned developments. It is submitted that when things stood thus, the Defendants No.2 to 4 claiming to be acting on behalf of Defendant No.1 after having failed to obtain interim order from courts as mentioned supra, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have indulged in extra legal methods to arm twist the plaintiffs by illegal acts and have got issued Legal Notices through Defendant No. 5, to the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property suppressing the vital material facts relating to various court proceedings. The Legal notices dated 07.07.2014, calling upon the subsequent purchasers to get their sale deeds cancelled which were registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar as there is a status quo order in A.A. 20/2012. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant No. 1 to 4, have also issued legal notice through Defendant No.5 to the Sub- Registrar, Devanahalli, stating that in spite of the status quo which is binding on the suit schedule property, the Sub-Registrar has acted in his individual capacity and has registered the sale deeds wherein sites were formed in the suit property.

12. It is submitted that, on 07.07.2014 the Defendant No. 2 to 4 who are the partners of Defendant No.1 firm have got issued Legal Notices through Defendant No.5 to the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property, which is highly misconceived and defamatory in nature. The legal notices issued by the Defendant No. 2 to 5 aim at tarnishing the image of the Plaintiffs at the eye of public, as the notices are bereft of facts and vexatious in nature. The Defendants 2 to 5 who are claiming to be acting on the capacity of partners of Defendant No.1 have sent legal notice dated 07.07.2014 only with an intention to defame the Plaintiffs in the eye of the public. The copy of the notices received by the subsequent purchasers are herewith attached and marked as Document No. 6.”

5. Pursuant to the suit summons, fifth defendant appeared and filed an application under Or