Defamation claims may extend limitation periods based on continuous harm and subsequent related proceedings, allowing for claims beyond initial publication.

JUDGMENT

IA 2046/2018, I.A. 2048/2018, I.A. 2091/2018 & I.A. 2092/2018 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by D1 & D2, D3, D4 and D5 respectively)

1. By these applications the defendant No.1 & 2, defendant No.3, defendant No.4 and defendant No.5 as also on behalf of the remaining defendants except 12 and 13 seek rejection of the plaint on the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. It may be noted that the plaintiff has given up defendant No.12 during the course of hearing and defendant No.13 is the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting against which no relief has been sought.

2. Learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 11 states that even if no application is filed on behalf of defendant No.6 to 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground as noted above, the same being a legal plea is required to be looked into by this Court in the first instance. According to learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 to 11, as per the own showing of the plaintiff the alleged slanderous telecast by defendant No.1 was on 29th July, 2006 till 31st July, 2006 and thus the cause of action having arisen on the said dates, the present suit filed by the plaintiff on 20th December, 2016 is hopelessly barred by limitation. The cause of action if any arises because of the telecast by the defendant No.1 and not by the exoneration of the plaintiff or that no action was taken by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (in short MIB) against the defendants. Even considering the date of cause of action being the plaintiff's exoneration by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, the suit is barred by limitation since the said order was passed on 20th April, 2007. The proceedings by the defendant No.1 by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3480/2008 whereby the order of the MIB dated 3rd January, 2008 was set aside and the matter remanded back to the MIB for a fresh decision and also the subsequent decision of the MIB dated 14th March, 2017 whereby it closed the proceedings against the defendant No.1 would not be a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit thereby extending the period of limitation in view of the prayers made. The writ petition filed by the defendant No.1 was a totally different and separate remedy under the provisions of Cable TV Act, giving no cause of action to the plaintiff and did not debar the plaintiff for filing the suit claiming defamation and the consequential relief of damages.

3. By the present suit, the plaintiff has not challenged the order dated 14th March, 2017 passed by the MIB whereby the proceedings against the defendant No.1 have been closed. In any case the proceedings before the MIB are parallel proceedings and does not bar the filing of the suit or extend the period of limitation in this regard. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in RFA No. 757/2010 titled as N.N.S. Rana Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 16th September, 2011. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in Procter & Gamble Home products Limited Vs. Hindustan Uniliver Limited, (2017) 238 DLT 585 and GMR Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Del 6866. It is submitted that an action under tort for defamation/libel/slander is not a continuing tort, even though the effect of publication may continue as held by the High Court of Calcutta in Manik Lal Bhowmik Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2017 SCC Online Cal 302. This Court has always followed the Single Publication Rule as laid down in Khawar Butt Vs. Asif Nazir Mir & Ors., 2013(139) DRJ 157.

4. Countering the arguments of learned counsel for th