ORDER :- This order shall govern the above two applications. The former was taken by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from publishing in future publications, articles, caricatures, news items, cartoons, etc., defamatory or derogatory in nature in the Tamil bi-weekly Nakkheeran or in any special editions thereof or any publications of the respondents/defendants without prior verification with the plaintiffs, pending the suit, while the latter was taken by the defendants for vacating the order of ad-interim injunction ex parte granted by this Court.

2. Affidavits in support of the applications and counter affidavits are perused. The averments in the plaint are also looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3. Advancing the arguments for the applicants/plaintiffs, the learned Counsel would submit that this is a suit for recovery of damages and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing in future publications, articles, caricatures, news items, cartoons, etc. defamatory or derogatory in nature in the Tamil bi-weekly Nakkheeran or in any special editions thereof or any publications of the defendants without prior verification with the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs at the time of the filing of the suit have filed 24 issues of the said bi-weekly magazine; that a reading of the same would clearly indicate that the defendants have made the defamatory publications continuously; that they would clearly and easily illustrate that they are per se defamatory and highly vituperative in all standards; that they are printing and publishing the same on the title page with broad headings or headlines as well as on the cover page, apart from featuring the photographs of the first and second plaintiffs or both; that none of the publications against the plaintiffs were found to be true or made on good faith after prior verification; that the defendants have been acting at the instigation of and have been closely moving with a political adversaries of the first plaintiff, who has been the Chief Minister of the State; that apart from that, deterrent action was taken by the first plaintiff as the Chief Minister of the State against the sandalwood bandit namely Veerappan; that the first defendant had occasions to meet the said Veerappan, for which he has not made any explanation how it took place when series of cases were brought forth against the said person; that there are also cases of heinous and grave crimes pending against the first defendant; that under the circumstances, the first defendant has developed all sorts of animus against the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs had got their protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India that they must live peacefully without being unnecessarily defamed by false and vituperative articles or by statements; that the defendants have been writing such articles and carrying them in their magazine and also continuing to do so; that it has gone to intolerable extent, and hence, the circumstances compelled the plaintiffs to come before the Court seeking the reliefs. Added further, the learned counsel that in the instant case, it is true that the defendants have got the right of criticism; but, the writings in the magazines which are brought to the notice of the Court, would clearly touch the personal life of the plaintiffs; that it can even be termed as character assassination; that ulterior motives have been brought forth, and apart from that, they attempted to cause defamation and shame to the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel in order to substantiate his contentions, relied on the following decisions :

(1) AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 190, K. V. Ramaniah v. Special Public Prosecutor;

(2) AIR 1962 Calcutta 27, National Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ashutosh Mukherjee;

(3) AIR 1982 Madhya Pradesh 47, Harishankar v. Kailash Narayan;

(4) AIR 1988 Karnataka 255, Sonakka Gopalagowda Shanthaveri v. U. R. Anantha Murthy;

(5) 199

Click Here to Read the rest of this document