Point of Law:
Where an aggrieved party approaches the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order passed in civil suit refusing to issue injunction to a private individual who is not under statutory duty to perform public duty or vacating an order of injunction, the main relief is for issue of a writ of mandamus to a private individual and such a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable.

ORDER :

1. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 29.2.2019 passed by learned trial Court on Application Exhibit 7 under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Special Civil Suit No.191 of 2018 whereby the application was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Petitioner is the original defendant in the suit preferred by the Respondent (original Plaintiff) bearing Special Civil Suit No. 191 of 2018 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, (hereinafter referred to as the ”Trial Court”) seeking damages for tortious act of unlawful interference with contracts and business relations worth Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and grant of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein restraining the petitioner from sending interfering letters/notices to the clients and potential clients of the Respondent herein. For the sake of brevity and convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per their original status before the trial Court as “plaintiff” and “defendant”.

2.1 It is stated that in response to the aforesaid Suit the petitioner herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent herein, inter alia, on, broadly speaking the following grounds:

I. That the trial Court does not have the jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, to entertain the suit inasmuch as neither the defendant has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court, nor the alleged cause of action, as stated or otherwise, qua the petitioner herein, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court.

II. That there exists no cause of action in favour of the respondent herein against the petitioner herein to file the suit;

III. That the Suit as filed by the plaintiff is manifestly barred by law.

2.2 However, vide order dated 29.01.2019, the trial Court erroneously, incorrectly and in complete violation of the settled principles of law dismissed the said application by holding, albeit erroneously and without application of mind, that:

a. The question of jurisdiction of the Court is not covered under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial Court, therefore, in gross violation of the settled principle of law, failed to return any finding on the issue of lack of jurisdiction;

b. Upon perusal of para 41 of the plaint it appears that the respondent has mentioned "cause of action" and, hence, it cannot be said that Order VII Rule 11 (a) would be applicable in the present case;

c. The Suit is not barred by Sections 41 (a) and 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963;

d. The question of whether the Respondent has even been able to make out a prima facie case of “tortious interference” against the petitioner cannot be examined at the present stage.

3. It is submitted that the impugned order is non-reasoned and discloses non-application of mind by the trial Court. In fact, the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and in utter disregard to the established principles of Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Further, the trial Court has acted in the teeth of settled law that furnishing of reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion as it introduces clarity in an order and that without the same the order becomes lifeless. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to prefer the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendant has caused tortious interference in the business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the said tortious interference has been caused by the Petitioner on account of press releases made by the Petitioner in Singapore and the United States of America. Admittedly, the said press releases have no