JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present application has been maintained by the applicant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking interim direction.

2. As per the applicant, she has maintained a suit before this High Court seeking damages from the nonapplicant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the nonapplicant") for defamation and slander and for the recovery of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (rupees one crore) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The applicant contends that after filing of the instant suit, the non-applicant started leveling false and baseless allegations on the applicant and her family members, which are defamatory in nature. The non-applicant, through his acts, damaged the reputation, prestige and dignity of the applicant and her family, including her husband. The applicant further contends that the non-applicant, through his false and baseless allegations depicted a negative image of the applicant and her husband. The applicant prayed that the non-applicant be restrained from posting or publishing any statement of any nature on facebook or on any other social media, including print or electronic media, till the disposal of the instant suit. As per the applicant, there exists prima facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience also exists in her favour. In the above backdrop, the applicant prays that an ad interim injunction be granted in favour of the applicant by allowing the present application.

3. The non-applicant, by filing reply to the application, refuted the allegations made in the application. The nonapplicant averred that the present application is not maintainable and it is a complete mis-use of the process of law. As per the non-applicant, the applicant has already obtained ad interim injunction, which cannot be granted under the law and the present application deserves dismissal. It is further averred that the non-applicant has fundamental right under the right of freedom of speech and this right cannot be throttled. In addition to that, the non-applicant has taken objection that the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it is contended that no prima facie case exists in favour of the applicant and the pleadings made by the applicant do not show that the post made by the non-applicant is scandalous/libelous and defamatory in nature. The nonapplicant emphatically denied that he has posted any material on facebook and other social media platforms against the applicant or her family members, which is false, baseless or scandalous. As per the non-applicant, he has not posted any material on social media, which can be termed as baseless or differently coloured. Rest of the contentions of the application have been denied, being false and incorrect. Lastly, the nonapplicant has prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein contentions of the non-applicant have been denied and the contents of the application have been reiterated. The applicant contends that fundamental right of freedom of speech does not confer on citizens right to speak or publish irresponsibly. No allegation can be leveled harming the reputation of others, thus constituting defamation. It is further averred that fundamental right of freedom of speech comes with reasonable restrictions. In an organized society, the rights have to be recognized with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The applicant averred that the non-applicant is continuously posting the posts which are irresponsible, unsubstantiated and libelous in nature, which constitute defamation. Lastly, the applicant prays that the application be allowed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the application be allowed, as the applicant has