Territorial jurisdiction for defamation suits is determined by the place where the defamatory material is published and comes to the knowledge of the public, and the mere existence of a corporate office in a particular place does not confer territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action arises at a place where the defendant has a branch office.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Appl. Nos. 21061-62/2017 (for exemptions)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

FAO No. 257/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 21063/2017 (for condonation of delay of 256 days in re-filing the appeal)

1. This first appeal under Order XLIII Rule (1)(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order of the Trial Court dated 12.5.2016 which has allowed the application of the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and directed the return of the plaint to be presented to the court of correct territorial jurisdiction.

2. The facts of the case are that the subject suit for compensation and damages for defamation was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the three respondents/defendants. Defamation is alleged to have been caused to the appellant/plaintiff on account of an article dated 11.8.2014 published by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in Bhagalpur, Bihar edition of the Hindi newspaper Hindustan.

3. It is settled law that defamation takes place because a defamatory statement or article or any other material is published i.e. it comes to the knowledge of the public and the appellant/plaintiff is brought down in estimation of the right thinking people of the society. Publication is a sine qua non with respect to defamatory article because defamation is only caused when the general public comes to know of the defamatory article. As per the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 CPC a suit seeking compensation/damages on account of defamation has to be filed where either whole or part of the cause of action arises or where the defendants reside or work for gain. In case the defendant is a company then additionally the Court has to consider the provision of the Explanation to Section 20 CPC read with the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270 and which holds that merely because a corporate office or a registered office or a head office of a company is situated at a particular place the same is not sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action is found to have arisen at a place where the defendant company has a branch office.

4. In the present case it is undisputed that the publication is in the Hindi newspaper Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar. There is admittedly no circulation of the newspaper Hindustan outside Bhagalpur in Bihar. It is not even the case of the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint that the defamation is caused by reading of the article in the newspaper Hindustan in Delhi, inasmuch as, no such argument has been raised before this Court by the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, it is seen that the entire cause of action as regards defamation has arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi, inasmuch as, defamation is alleged to have been caused on account of publication of the article in daily newspaper Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar. Therefore, the Court below has rightly held that no part of the cause of action has accrued in Delhi for this Court to have territorial jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that cause of action has accrued in Delhi because interview which was given by the appellant/plaintiff was given at Delhi and therefore in Delhi part of cause of action has arisen. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Jaharlal Pagalia Vs. Union of India, AIR 1959 Calcutta 273 and the relevant para 6 of which judgment which is relied upon reads as under:-

“6. Thus cause of action has one meaning in relation to the basis of a claim and another in relation to the jurisdiction of Court. The former is the restricted and the latter is the wider meaning of cause of action. In the restricted sense it includes facts constituting the infringement of the right and is thus the cause which is the foundation of the sui