Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHA MENON, J.
Dr. Sanjiv Bansal – Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Manish Bansal – Defendant
C.S. (OS) No. 649 of 2021, I.A. Nos. 16022, 16023 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 148 - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Will and Testament - Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff submitted that defendant had instituted a suit being C.S. (OS) No. 287/2021 titled Dr. Manish Bansal vs. Dr. Sanjiv Bansal and Others, also impleading M/s R.G. Scientific Enterprises Limited as defendant No. 9 - Said suit was filed for perpetual injunction and declaration that alleged Will and Testament dated purportedly executed was not genuine and same had been made in suspicious circumstances - Plaintiff herein claimed that his father, late had bequeathed his estate through a registered Will dated to him - This was not acceptable to defendant and so he instituted suit for a share in his father’s estate - He was fully aware of plaintiff having painstakingly built his reputation, he made unacceptable, deliberately demeaning, derogatory, false, wrong and scandalous allegations in plaint, knowing fully well that plaint would also reach hands of management and employees of M/s R.G. Scientific Enterprises Limited and its recent investors - Whether plaint discloses a cause of action and whether prayers made would amount to an act in contempt of court to be barred by law.
Finding of the Court:
It is not found necessary, to refer to extracts of plaint in C.S. (OS) No. as reproduced in Para No. of plaint, except to consider, whether a cause of action is disclosed - To that extent, it has to be concluded that suit discloses a cause of action - It may be underlined that such an objection has not been stressed on behalf of defendant but in view of detailed submissions urged on behalf of plaintiff on issue, an opinion on same has been given - Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication to written statement and rejoinder to reply filed by defendant within thirty days of filing of written statement/reply - Replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of documents filed by defendant, failing which replication shall not be taken on record - If any of parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, same shall be sought and given within time-lines - List before Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
Result: Order accordingly.
ORDER :
1. The present order has been necessitated on account of the submissions made on behalf of the defendant that the suit was not maintainable under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ in short). Both sides have filed their written submissions along with cited case laws which I have considered in addition to the submissions made by learned counsel.
2. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that the suit has been filed with the following prayers:
(b) Pass an order for damages of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only), or such further amount as may be ascertained by this Hon'ble Court for causing mental pain, stress, agony, torture and cruelty to the Plaintiff.
(c) Pass an Order directing the Defendant to withdraw the said ex facie demeaning, derogatory, false and wrong allegations made against the Plaintiff in C.S. (OS) No. 287/2021.
(d) Pass a Decree for costs in the proceedings.”
3. Mr. Manish Kaushik, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant had instituted a suit being C.S. (OS) No. 287/2021 titled Dr. Manish Bansal vs. Dr. Sanjiv Bansal and Others, also impleading M/s R.G. Scientific Enterprises Limited as defendant No. 9. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction and declaration that the alleged Will and Testament dated 29th December, 2017, purportedly executed by Dr. Bhim Sen Bansal was not genuine and the same had been made in suspicious circumstances. The plaintiff herein claimed that his father, late Dr. B.S. Bansal had bequeathed his estate through a registered Will dated 29th December, 2017 to him. This was not acceptable to the defendant and so he instituted the suit for a share in his father's estate.
4. While doing so, though he was fully aware of the plaintiff having painstakingly built his reputation, he made unacceptable, deliberately demeaning, derogatory, false, wrong and scandalous allegations in the plaint, knowing fully well that the plaint would also reach the hands of the management and employees of M/s R.G. Scientific Enterprises Limited and its recent investors. Thus, he had been defamed.
5. Relying on the judgments in Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swamy, 2006 SCC Online Del. 14, Dhiro Koch and Others vs. Gobinda Dev Mishra Bura Satria, 65 Ind. Cas. 204, Auguda Ram Shaha vs. Nemai Chand Shaha, 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 576 and Rahim Bakhsh vs. Bachcha Lal, 1928 SCC Online All. 246, the learned counsel submitted that there could be no absolute privilege to averments, specially defamatory statements made in the pleadings. The learned counsel has further relied on several judgments of this court, other High Courts as well as the Supreme Court in John Thomas vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, (2001) 6 SCC 30, Rohini Singh vs. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC Online Guj. 10, Sanjay Mishra vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2012 SCC Online Del. 1779, Thangavelu Chettiar vs. Ponnammal, 1965 SCC Online Mad. 248, Madhuri Mukund Chitnis vs. Mukund Martand Chitnis, 1990 SCC Online Bom. 410, Prabhakaran vs. Gangadharan, 2006 SCC Online Ker. 302 and Sushma Rani vs. H.N. Nagaraja Rao, 2020 SCC Online Kar. 1913 to contend that pleadings in a court amount to publication and can be per se defamatory.
6. It was submitted that the suit was maintainable, as the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages for injury to his reputation as the right to reputation is envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 SCC 417, Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, Kiran Bedi vs. Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
