The determination of jurisdiction and the defamatory nature of the statements in a defamation case depends on the evidence presented during the trial, and the issue of jurisdiction can be decided as a preliminary issue.

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal, in O.S.A.No.226 of 2013, had been filed against the order and decree, dated 14.9.2012, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, in A.No.3998 of 2012, in C.S.No.141 of 2012.

2. The application, in A.No.3998 of 2012, has been filed by the defendant, seeking to revoke the leave granted on 23.2.2012, in Application No.891 of 2012, stating that the suit is not maintainable in law and on facts and it is without jurisdiction. The learned single Judge, by his order, dated 14.9.2012, had dismissed the application, in A.No.3998 of 2012.

3. The applicant, in A.No.3998 of 2012, is the appellant in the present Original Side Appeal. The appellant, who is the defendant in the suit, in C.S.No.141 of 2012, had filed the application, in A.No.3998 of 2012. The said suit had been filed by the plaintiff, who is the respondent in the present Original Side Appeal claiming damages for a sum of Rs.1 crore, with future interest at 18% per annum and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein, the appellant in the present appeal, from publishing any article concerning the plaintiff, his family, his private life, private life of his family members, his business activities carried on by him relating to the Tamil daily newspaper `Dinamalar’, without ascertaining the actual truth from the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff in the suit, in C.S.No.141 of 2012, had stated that several defamatory statements had been made against him in the Trichy edition of the Tamil daily newspaper `Dinamalar’. It had been stated that the cause of action had arisen at Chennai, where the plaintiff is residing, for the filing of the suit before this Court.

5. It had been stated that the defamatory article had been reported from Chennai and published by the defendant in the suit, in the Trichy edition of the Tamil daily newspaper, on 11.2.2012. The newspaper was made available at Chennai and it had been read by various persons. Thus, the reputation of the plaintiff and his self esteem had been lowered. It had also caused mental agony and loss of reputation to the family members of the plaintiff. Based on such cause of action, shown to have arisen at Chennai, leave had been granted to sue the defendant on the original side of this Court. In such circumstances, the defendant in the suit, who is the appellant in the present appeal, had filed an application, in A.No.3998 of 2012, to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiff, in A.No.891 of 2012, by an order dated 23.2.2012, as the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, both in law and on facts and it is without jurisdiction.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to revoke the leave granted by this Court, it had been stated that the applicant is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Trichy edition of the Tamil daily newspaper `Dinamalar’. The said newspaper is having circulation only in the Trichy area. As such, the defendant had no right to sell the newspaper beyond the territorial limit of Trichy and its outskirts. The Tamil daily newspaper `Dinamalar’ has a separate edition for Chennai, with its own Editor, Printer and Publisher, as per the rules of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The plaintiff had merely pleaded that the publication is available in Chennai and therefore, the suit is maintainable before this Court. However, there is no allegation that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff by publishing the defamatory statements at Chennai. Since, the entire cause of action for the publication of the impugned article was only at Trichy the plaintiff is not entitled to sue the defendant, before this Court, at Chennai.

7. The defendant had further stated that he had already filed an application, in A.No.2384 of 2012, seeking to dismiss the suit, in C.S.No.141 of 2012, stating that it was without jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff had contended that he had obtained leave to sue and therefore, the application