The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner had available statutory remedies under CPC for seeking vacation of the ad-interim orders dated 17.08.2023 and 18.08.2023, and the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the ad-interim orders dated 17.08.2023 and 18.08.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, South West, Dwarka Courts (`Trial Court'), New Delhi in Civil Suit bearing no. 1033/2023 in an application filed by the Respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC').

Brief facts

2. The Petitioner herein is the original defendant and the Respondent is original plaintiff in the civil suit.

3. The civil suit has been filed on 17.08.2023 for mandatory and permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner herein from telecasting or broadcasting or printing news spread/shared by Kapil Sangwan also known as Nandu of `Nandu Gang'. The cause of action pleaded in the suit is with respect to an episode broadcasted by the Petitioner in the afternoon on 17.08.2023, which as per the Respondent is false news.

3.1. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2023 at 05:18 PM issued summons in the suit to the Petitioner herein and passed an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the Petitioner herein from broadcasting news under the head `Operation Paap' and posted the matter for hearing on 18.08.2023.

3.2. The learned Trial Court on 18.08.2023 extended the interim order until 23.08.2023 and granted time to the Petitioner, as per its request, to file a reply in the proceedings. The said order records that the next date of 23.08.2023 has been fixed as per the convenience of the Petitioner.

4. The facts which have led to the controversy in the present petition are that on 17.08.2023 a broadcast was telecasted by the Petitioner titled as `Sarji ka Vidhayak Gangster ka Sahayak' and `Operation Paap' on its channel `Times Now Navbharat' and on its social media handle on `YouTube', wherein the Petitioner sought to highlight a link/nexus between the Respondent herein and one (person) named Kapil Sangwan also known as Nandu.

4.1. The Petitioner's anchor relied upon and played an audio recording of a conversation between Kapil Sangwan and the Respondent herein during this episode. In the episode aired on 17.08.2023, the Petitioner invited five (5) panellists to debate on the conversation heard in this audio recording.

5. The Respondent herein aggrieved by the said episode instituted the civil suit bearing no. 1033/2023 for permanent and mandatory injunction before the Trial Court. It is stated in the suit that the contents of the episode are false and no prior verification has been sought by the Petitioner from the Respondent herein before holding the debate and airing the episode. It is stated in the suit that the attempts made by the Respondent to reach out to the Petitioner and its officials to convey that the news being carried in the episode is false has not met with any response and therefore, the Respondent has been constrained to file the civil suit seeking an injunction against the Petitioner herein.

Arguments of the Petitioner

6. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has made the following submissions:

6.1. He states that at the outset, the Petitioner submits that the contents of the audio recording between the Respondent and Kapil Sangwan, which were played out at the episode aired on 17.08.2023 are true and correct. He states that the Petitioner stands by the veracity of the said recording. He states that the debate, which was moderated in the said episode was pertaining to correct facts.

6.2. He states that, therefore, the episode which was broadcasted by the Petitioner on 17.08.2023 is absolutely fair, honest and it has been aired in public interest. He more specifically relies upon the statement to this effect made in this petition at paragraphs 9(iii) and (iv). 6.3. He states that the Petitioner herein stand by the contents of the episode and the truthfulness of the recording played out at the episode. He states that the Petitioner is willing to take upon itself the onus of