A suit for defamation is maintainable if it discloses a cause of action, and legal redress for reputational damage does not interfere with justice.

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

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 CS (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 CS(OS) No.287/2021 titled Dr. Manish Bansal Vs. Dr. Sanjiv Bansal & Ors., 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 judgements in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 14, Dhiro Koch and Ors. v. Gobinda Dev Mishra Bura Satria, 65 Ind. Cas.204, Auguda Ram Shaha v. Nemai Chand Shaha, 12 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 576 and Rahim Bakhsh v. 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 v. K. Jagadeesan (Dr), (2001) 6 SCC 30 and Rohini Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 10, Sanjay Mishra v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1779, Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal, 1965 SCC OnLine Mad 248, Madhuri Mukund Chitnis v. Mukund Martand Chitnis, 1990 SCC OnLine Bom 410, Prabhakaran v. Gangadharan, 2006 SCC OnLine Ker 302 and Sushma Rani v. 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 judgements of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 SCC 417, Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, Kiran B