High Court will have jurisdiction if defendants reside within its jurisdiction.

Appeal filed under Order 36 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.212 of 2002.

P.K. MISRA, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from three defendants jointly and severally as damages on the allegation that a defamatory notice was published at the instance of Defendant No.1 in the newspaper “Daily Thanthi” belonging to Defendant No.2 of which Defendant No.3 was the Editor, Printer and Publisher.

2. The allegation in the plaint is to the effect that Defendant No.1, who had offered to supervise the construction of a Guest House for the plaintiff, who is an exporter of Tamil feature films to Sri Lanka, had been given an imprest cash of Rs.3,78,000/- for purchase of materials. According to the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 was liable to refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- and when the plaintiff broached the subject, Defendant No.1 abused and assaulted the plaintiff for which he had preferred a complaint with Aranthangi Police and a case has been registered as C.C.No.1001 of 2001 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi against Defendant No.1. On 25.1.2002, Defendant No.1 out of spite and intention to injure the credit and reputation of the plaintiff, caused a publication in the Tamil daily “Daily Thanthi” containing false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. It has been further stated that publication of such notice caused mental pain and agony and had lowered reputation in the estimate of the public. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice dated 4.2.2002 to Defendant No.1 demanding Rs.11,00,000/- as compensation, but there was no response. Defendants 2 and 3 have printed and published irresponsibly the aforesaid publication without verifying the correctness and, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable and though the notice dated 4.2.2002 was sent to Defendant No.3, there was no response from Defendant No.3. It was further stated in the plaint that cause of action arose at Chennai where the Defendants 2 and 3 were carrying on business and where publication had been made on 25.1.2002.

3. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, wherein it was stated that he had married the niece of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had requested the first defendant to construct his house. The total construction cost came to Rs.4,79,000/-, whereas the plaintiff had given a sum of Rs.3,47,000/- and thus there was balance of Rs.1,32,000/- payable by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff had delayed and defaulted in paying the said amount. Defendant No.1 had handed over the key of the constructed house and at that time the plaintiff had promised to pay the balance sum of Rs.1,32,000/- within six months and yet the plaintiff had not done so and had not fulfilled his commitment. In such background, Defendant No.1 had given the newspaper publication dated 25.1.2002 in “Dhina Thanthi”, Trichy Edition, setting out all the facts. In the said publication it is stated that there was pending dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 regarding construction of the house and the publication put the prospective buyers on notice that the purchaser would have to make good the loss to Defendant No.1 and no imputation was made against the plaintiff and the publication does not even remotely imply that the plaintiff was an accused in any criminal case and it was only a bonafide assertion of the claim of Defendant No.1 in good faith. It was further indicated that publication was given only in Trichy Edition and there was no circulation whatsoever in Chennai, and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

4. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of Defendant No.2, which is the proprietor of the newspaper “Daily Thanthi”. In the written statement it was admitted that the office of the newspaper at Trichy had received fro