Vipin Sanghi, J.

O.A. No.66/2017

1. This chamber appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), whereby the plaintiff’s application I.A. No.15646/2016 under Section 30 and Order XI Rule 14 CPC for direction to the defendants to produce documents within their power, control and possession has been allowed, and the defendants have been directed to produce on oath the following documents:

(i) News program dated 13.01.2015 aired by the Defendant No.1, for a duration of 1 hours and 50 minutes approximately (as detailed in para 25 of the plaint); and

(ii) The article published by defendant no.2 dated 09.01.2015 titled as “Chhattisgarh High Court directs police to file rape complaint against Naveen Jindal, Associate” (as detailed in para 26 of the plaint)

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek the relief of permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction and damages against the defendants on the premise that the defendants have aired and published certain mala fide, malicious and vindictive news articles on the TV channels and newspaper owned and managed by them which, according to the plaintiff, are highly defamatory of the name and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that the defendant No.1 aired the programme on 13.01.2015 for a duration of 1 hour and 50 minutes approximately on its television channel, which according to the plaintiff, is distorted and highly defamatory. In addition, defendant No.2/ DNA which is owned by Zee Media published the article on 09.01.2016 “Chhattisgarh High Court directs Police to file rape complaint against Navin Jindal Associate” which too is stated to be highly defamatory and distorted.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also moved an interim application being I.A. No. 1070/2015 to seek an interim injunction against the defendants telecasting the said programme, or publishing the said news article. That application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2015. The operative part of the order dated 05.03.2015 reads as follows:-

49. In these facts would the plaintiff be entitled to an injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing reports or airing reports pertaining to the allegations which are pending before the police by Mrs. ABC. Legal position as explained above is quite clear. Any publication which gives excessive adverse publicity to an accused or which is likely to hamper fair trial and constitutes an interference with the course of justice could be a ground for grant of injunction. The court has ample inherent power to restrain publication in media in the event it arrives at a finding that the said publication may result in interference with the administration of justice or would be against the principle of fair trial or open justice.

50. The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Serious prejudice will be caused to plaintiff in case injunction is not granted. Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2, their associates are restrained by an order of injunction from publishing any article or right-ups or telecasting programmes on the allegations against the plaintiff as made by Mrs. ABC either in the complaint or before the police, till the time the police completes its enquiry and, if necessary, investigation and files an appropriate report/document before the court. The injunction passed is of a temporary nature and is applicable only till the police completes its preliminary enquiry or any other investigation if required that may be done at a later stage. However, the defendants are free to report about the court cases or about the final conclusion of the police in the course of preliminary enquiry covered under the ambit of fair reporting on the basis of true, correct and verified information. The application stands disposed of.

4. The defendants have filed their detailed written statement. In response to the specific averments made in paragraph 25 of