The main legal point established is that as per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Editor is responsible for any article published in the newspaper, and if no cause of action arises against a person, the suit should be dismissed on that ground.

VANDANA KASREKAR, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of parties at motion stage.

The petitioner has filed this present revision challenging the order dated 03/03/2015 passed by VIII ADJ, Indore in civil suit No.1-B/2014 whereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for damages against the present petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of an article published on 25/03/2014 in the Indore Edition of the Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" which allegedly defamed the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No.1-B/2014 and same is filed on the ground that respondent No.1/plaintiff is a permanent resident of Indore City and belongs to a reputed family. Respondent No.1/plaintiff and his father is having a well known name in Indore City and nearby places. Respondent No.1/plaintiff is running a Hotel at Servate Bus Stand by name of Hotel Ranjeet. It is further alleged that petitioner/defendant No.1 is owner of daily Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar", Indore Edition, respondent No.2 is the Editor of said Newspaper, respondent No.3 is the publisher and printer of said Newspaper and respondent No.4 is local editor of the said Newspaper. Thus, all the defendants are responsible for the news published in the said Newspaper.

3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff further alleged that all the defendants conspired together to published defamatory news items to defame the plaintiff and to blackmail him. That petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC wherein it has been stated that petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the owner of Newspaper "Dainik Bhasker" described by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the plaint and the said fact is verifiable from the documents filed alongwith plaint. It has further been alleged in the application that petitioner/defendant No.1 has no involvement whatsoever and no control over the selection of the matter which is to be published in the Newspaper. The responsibility of selecting the matter to be published in any newspaper is that of the Editor.

4. Thus, petitioner/defendant No.1 is not at all responsible or liable for the alleged defamatory article published on 25/03/2014 in the Indore edition of the Newspaper "Dainik Bhasker". The averments made in the plaint are extremely vague and clouded with unclear pleadings and do not at all spell out any cause of action against the petitioner.

5. The respondents have filed the reply of the said application and the trial Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03/03/2015, this present revision petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that trial Court has erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. He submits that on the basis of plaint allegations as well as documents which has been filed alongwith plaint, no cause of action has arisen against the present petitioner/defendant No.1. It is further submitted that section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (which shall be referred here and after as "Act") whereby the Editor is the responsible for any item published in the Newspaper. He further argued that Section 7 of the Act enables the Court to draw a presumption that the person whose name was printed as Editor was Editor of such newspaper, if the publication produced in the Court shows to that effect and the in the present case since name of petitioner/defendant No.1 does not appear anywhere in the copy of newspaper as Owner or Editor, therefore, trial Court should have allowed the application of the present petitioner/defendant No.1 in the light of specific provisions of the Act. He further argued that on the basis of plaint and the allegations made in the plaint, no cause of