The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of the cause of action cannot be equated with the merits of the suit filed, and questions of fact require evidence to be adduced during trial.

ORDER

I.A. 10114/2020 (of defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint)

1. This order will dispose of the application moved under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) on behalf of the defendants, with the following prayers :

"A. Allow the present application and reject the present suit plaint qua the Defendant and/or

B. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

2. Before proceeding with the merits of the application, it may be noted that the suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 crores, by the plaintiff, who is the daughter-in-law of the defendants. Her case is that the defendants had, by their words and actions, including a press-conference addressed by them, openly accused the plaintiff of being guilty of and conniving and conspiring to have her husband murdered. On account of the wide publicity of this statement, including in the print-media, the plaintiff submitted that her reputation had been shattered and being a businesswoman, was also maligned through wrongful impressions being created not only with the general public, but also with her business associates. Her social life had also been negatively impacted and she and her family were suffering from acute anxiety and depression.

3. By means of the present application, the defendants have contended that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and since the defendants had only one thought in their mind, which was the apprehension of the true murderer of their one and only son and malice could not be attributed to them and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

4. A reply has been filed by the plaintiff to submit that the questions raised in the application were of such a nature that required determination at trial and hence the application was liable to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants/defendants, submitted that it was important to consider the fact situation in the present case to determine, whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. According to the learned counsel, the answers given by the defendants were in response to questions put to them by the media on the conduct of the plaintiff. Their statements taken in entirety, were clearly not plaintiff centric. Furthermore, it was submitted that the plaintiff has not made any averment in the plaint, as to how her reputation had been harmed. Thus, material facts have not been pleaded, justifying a claim of Rs.5 crores.

6. It was further submitted that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the cause of action had not arisen in Delhi. The interview was given in Faridabad, Haryana. The defendants were residing in Faridabad. No details of the URLs have been given and in any case, the uploading of the video was never done at the instance of the defendants. Moreover, the pecuniary jurisdiction was also indeterminate, since damages have not been quantified for this purpose. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 366.

7. Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, learned counsel, arguing on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted that this Court had jurisdiction vested in it under Sections 19 and 20 of the CPC. It was submitted that the plaintiff resided in Delhi and the impact on her reputation was suffered by her at Delhi, as a consequence of the statements of the defendants. These averments were made in para No.21 of the plaint. Thus, on neither ground could the plaint be rejected. The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff had explained why she was claiming Rs.5 crores in para No.22, 23 and 26. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aravali Infrapower Ltd V. R.B. Gupta, 2015 SCC OnLine 7264 and GMR Infrastructure Limited v. Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt