Point of Law: A cause of action would arise on the basis of which the plaintiff can approach the court. It would definitely be a different matter, whether ultimately the plaintiff succeeds in the suit or not.

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:

“(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, servants, employees, officers, associates, representatives, attorneys and all acting for and on its behalf from writing, circulating, speaking, publishing or making any demeaning remark/material against the Plaintiff or engaging in any conduct which causes mental pain and agony to the Plaintiff.

(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. (O.S.) 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. (O.S.) No. 287/2021 titled Dr. Manish Bansal vs. Dr. Sanjiv Bansal and Others, also impleading M/s RG 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 RG 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. 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. Committe