Back
High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA
J.B.PATNAIK - Appellant
Versus
BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO.LTD. - Respondent
M. C. 88 Of 1987
Decided On : 09/18/1989
DEFAMATION - WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT - COMPROMISE - COURT'S POWER TO EXPUNGE SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS - O. 6, R. 16, C. P. C. - O. 23, R. 1, C. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the Chief Minister of Orissa, filed a suit for damages for defamation against the defendants, the proprietors of the Illustrated Weekly of India, its Editor, and a Special Correspondent, for publishing two articles containing scandalous allegations relating to his perverted sexual character. The defendants filed written statements justifying the publication of the articles and denied liability for damages. During the pendency of the suit, the parties reached a compromise and the defendants tendered an apology in the Illustrated Weekly. The plaintiff filed a petition for withdrawal of the suit against the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff had the right to withdraw the suit against all the defendants under O. 23, R. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court also held that the allegations made by one of the defendants in his objection to the withdrawal of the suit, which were unnecessary, irrelevant, and an abuse of the process of the Court, were liable to be expunged from the records under O. 6, R. 16, CPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff could withdraw the suit against all the defendants under O. 23, R. 1, CPC? 2. Whether the allegations made by one of the defendants in his objection to the withdrawal of the suit were liable to be expunged from the records under O. 6, R. 16, CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff had the right to withdraw the suit against all the defendants under O. 23, R. 1, CPC, as he had abandoned his claim and did not want to institute a fresh suit for the same subject-matter or claim. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K. B. Bass and Co., (AIR 1968 SC 111), which held that the language of O. 23, R. 1 (1), CPC gives an unqualified right to a plaintiff to withdraw from a suit and, if no permission to file a fresh suit is sought under sub-rule (2) of that Rule, the plaintiff becomes liable for such costs as the Court may award and becomes precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of that subject-matter under sub-rule (3) of that Rule. 2. The Court held that the allegations made by one of the defendants in his objection to the withdrawal of the suit, which were unnecessary, irrelevant, and an abuse of the process of the Court, were liable to be expunged from the records under O. 6, R. 16, CPC. The Court relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Ltd. v. C. Hariprasad, AIR 1966 Madras 161, which held that the Court has inherent power, quite independently of O. VI, R. 16, CPC, to strike out scandalous matter in any record or proceeding.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the plaintiff's petition for withdrawal of the suit against all defendants. Original Suit No. 1 of 1987 stood withdrawn and closed. The allegations made by one of the defendants in paragraphs 14, 15, and 19 of the objection dated 5-9-1989 were expunged. Misc. Case Nos. 83,84,85,87, and 88 of 1989 and all other petitions relating to the withdrawal of the suit were disposed of. In the circumstances, the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a petition for withdrawal of the suit for damages for defamation.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the Chief Minister of Orissa. Defendant No. 1 are the proprietors of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. , publishing the Illustrated Weekly of India (for short `illustrated Weekly) from Bombay having a wide circulation throughout the country. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 serve as Editor and Special Correspondent thereof. Defendant No. 4 is a former Member of Parliament. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 published two articles in the Illustrated Weekly in the issues 18-24 May, 1986 and 3-9 August, 1986 respectively. The first article was captioned "shocking: The Strange Escapades Of J. B. Patnaik, Orissa Chief Minister". In this article, scandalous allegations relating to the perverted sexual character of the plaintiff were made. Also were published therein the, details of an interview which defendant No. 3 had with defendant No. 4 in a box item under the heading "he Is A Pervert". The statements said to have been made by the latter in the interview with the former were alleged to be grossly abusive depicting the plaintiff as a sex monster. In the second article, under the caption, "why Is J. B. Patnaik Being Allowed To Gag The Press?", affidavits of two persons describing the plaintiff's immoral and perverted sexual character were further published. The plaintiff felt greatly outraged, because he held a high office and found that his character was being assassinated on account of a deep rooted conspiracy so as to oust him not only from the office of Chief Minister, but also from the field of politics. He also felt deep mental agony along with his family members. Therefore, alleging that both the articles contained false and grossly defamatory allegations aimed at character assassination by political rivals, he instituted the suit for damages to the tune of rupees one crore against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
( 3 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 4 filed separate written statements and averred therein that the entire story of sexual perversion of the plaintiff was based on authentic information which came to their hands and they believed the same to be true. They took the plea of justification for publication of the two articles and denied their liability for damages.
( 4 ) DURING pendency of the suit, on the miscellaneous applications of the plaintiff, mainly contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 3, many significant orders of far-reaching consequences were passed by this Court against some of which the latter approached the Supreme Court direct and against many others, they first preferred Letters Patent Appeals in this Court and after dismissal again approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. Two of such petitions are S. L. P. (Civil) Nos. 800-01 of 1989. During hearing of the said petitions, the Supreme Court passed the following order on 9-8-1989 :-"these petitions were called on for further hearing today. Coram and appearance as before. Counsel for both the parties stated that the matter has been compromised and the Court passed the following order:- there will be an order in terms of the Minutes tendered by counsel and marked as `x' for identification. Learned counsel for both the parties state that it is preferable that the text of the apology should not be made public till the apology is published, as per the agreement between the parties, in the Illustrated Weekly of India in the issue of 27th August - 2nd Sept. , 1989. In view of this we direct that Annexure "a" to the minutes which contains a draft of the apology shall be kept in a sealed cover in the Registry and the said cover will be opened only after publication of the apology in the Illustrated Weekly. We understand that suit No. OS 1/87 pending in the High Court of Orissa has been placed for hearing on 10th August, 1989 both parties agree that they will request for an adjournment till 28th August, 1989 and we h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
