Defamation suits can be filed in the jurisdiction where the reputational harm is felt, under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without needing leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) An issue of seminal importance, which the Court is tasked upon to adjudicate, is whether Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would govern defamation suits filed in original civil jurisdiction of this Court and whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would be mandatory for institution of such suits where defamatory material originates outside the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court, but Plaintiff’s reputation is hurt within its territorial jurisdiction.

2) Plaintiff has filed the present Suit alleging defamation by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff describes himself as the Chairman of Maharashtra State Board of Waqf. He claims to have held several prestigious positions on various organizations and has earned a repute for himself. It is averred in the Plaint that Defendant No.1 is associated with a political party and has large number of followers on social media platforms. That Defendant No. 2 is a member of a banned organization and has large number of followers on the social media. That on 21 September 2025 Defendant No. 1 uploaded a video on her Facebook and Instagram accounts containing defamatory contents against Plaintiff. That Defendant No. 2 has also published videos/posts on his Facebook, Instagram and X accounts containing defamatory contents against the Plaintiff. That on 20 September 2025, Defendant No. 1 held a press conference at Aurangabad, in which he made defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff relating inter alia to corruption. That the said interview has been published in newspapers, broadcast TV channels and also uploaded on YouTube channel.

3) It is averred by the Plaintiff in paragraph 58 of the Plaint that Maharashtra State Board of Waqf has an office in Mumbai. Plaintiff has further averred that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have uploaded and shared the impugned content on online platforms as well as on various other platforms, which are available for access all over the world including at Mumbai. The Plaintiff has therefore averred that the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai and accordingly the Suit has been filed in this Court on its original side.

4) Plaintiff had initially filed Leave Petition (L) No. 32358 of 2025 seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. However, on 10 October 2025, the Court dealing with the roster of Leave Petition has disposed of the Leave Petition observing that Para 61 thereof contained a pleading that the entire cause of action has arisen in Mumbai.

5) Defendant No.1, in her Affidavit-in-Reply opposing the Interim Application for temporary injunction, has raised an objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to try and entertain the Suit. According to her, Plaintiff is an ordinary resident of Aurangabad and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Pune. It is contended that the impugned contents are published/uploaded by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 at Pune and Aurangabad. Even if it is assumed that impugned contents have damaged reputation of the Plaintiff, it is contended that the damage to the reputation, if any, would be at Aurangabad. It is therefore contended that no cause of action for filing of Suit has arisen in Mumbai. Alternatively, it is the case of Defendant No.1 that even if impugned contents are accessible in Mumbai or have been accessed by any person in Mumbai, only a part of cause of action would arise in Mumbai, in which case, leave of this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would be necessary for the purpose of maintaining the Suit. Since the Plaintiff has failed to