The rejection of a plaint cannot be decided at the interim stage and must be tested at trial, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience in granting injunctions.

PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J

1. These two appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application for rejecting the plaint and giving certain directions in the prayer for injunction.

2. The appellants are the defendants. The suit was filed by the respondent against the appellants for an injunction restraining the appellant and any one acting on their behalf from publishing any material, articles, photographs, in their magazines, websites whatsoever either by direct or indirect reference against the plaintiff or any of their trustees and devotees, personally or individually or in the capacity of a trustee or such trustees. In paragraph 15 in the plaint, there is reference to certain reports allegedly containing defamatory materials both verbal and visual. In paragraph 17, it is stated that the articles and photographs violate the respondents privacy and personal liberty of the trustee and devotee of the trust. In paragraph 22 it is stated that the publications directly affect the reputation of its founder trustee and the Trust and the plaintiff have suffered a huge financial loss. In paragraph 27, there is reference to O.S.No.2321 of 2010 filed before the XV City Civil Court, Chennai for permanent injunction and to the fact that it was withdrawn on 19.03.2010 in view of the undertaking given in W.P.(M.D)No.3015 of 2010 and that suit was dismissed as not pressed. These are briefly the plaint averments. On the basis of similar averments in the affidavit supporting the application, a petition was filed for injunction.

3. The appellants herein filed a counter denying all the allegations and specifically stating that the founder trustee doing a "subject of public gaze and he cannot have privacy" and that "there was no defamation caused and there was no loss of reputation". It is also denied that the appellants gave any undertaking in any writ petition and it is also submitted that the respondent has not made out prima facie case nor balance of convenience and that the Trust has no locus standi to file any bare injunction suit. Paragraph 20 refers to the announcement by the founder trustee that he has resigned from all positions connected to the Peetam and it is therefore submitted that in the absence of authorisation, the plaint must be dismissed as bereft of cause of action. There is also reference to an interview given to the Magazine Junior Vikatan. In paragraph 22 of the counter, there are references to various proceedings which are alleged to be litigations against the media seeking to gag the media freedom and they are,

.(i) W.P.No.3015 of 2010 filed by one S.Durairaj

.(ii) A Public Interest Litigation filed by one Sekar (W.P.No.5427 of 2010) which was dismissed by this Court leaving the aggrieved persons to take up the issue and that no mandamus can be issued

(iii) W.P.No.3457 of 2010 filed by one Sathishkumar which is pending

.(iv) In O.S.No.2321 of 2010, the appellants have filed an application for rejection of plaint and the suit was withdrawn and

.(v) Crl.M.P.No.1251 of 2010 filed by one Sarathy.

It is alleged that since no favourable order was obtained in any of these proceedings, this suit has been filed and therefore, the appellants prayed that injunction should be vacated and the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed Application No.2027 of 2010 for rejection of the plaint and ordered O.A.No.385 of 2010 to a limited extent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the extent to which freedom of press has been protected are really delineated by a series of case laws and the principle is that at the stage of interim orders, the right of the publisher should be protected; whereas at the time of trial, after evidence, the right of the person complaining of defamation should be protected.

6. The learned counsel submitted that in fact in the case of R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Goal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and anoth