IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction – Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in suit – Restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to suit cannot be granted by any cannon of law.

ORDER (CAV)

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 04-04-2025 and corrected order dated 07-04-2025 passed by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.2499 of 2025 issuing ad-interim ex-parte Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from airing the programme of the 2nd petitioner.

2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Varun Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent 4.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner is a journalist by profession and is said to be running a social media in the logo BTV Kannada for broadcasting and publication. The 1st petitioner is one of the Directors of the 2nd petitioner-M/s BTV Kannada Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short). The Company earns revenue out of the social media page on the logo BTV Kannada. The social media page was suddenly blocked and removed in the 3rd week of April, 2025 by all social media platforms through their social media Administrator without any reference, but vaguely referring to an order of the civil Court. It is then, the petitioners went in search of the said civil suit and come to know that there was a suit in O.S.No.2499 of 2025 instituted by rival claimant against whom several litigations are pending and in the said suit there is an order of restraint of use or airing of BTV Kannada in their respective social media page. Calling in question the order dated 04-04-2025 passed by the concerned Court, the petitioners are before this Court on the score that adinterim injunction is granted under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 by the civil Court without even making the petitioners, a party, while making every other social media platform a party.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the plaint averments if noticed it is full of allegations against the petitioners. A restraint order is secured at the hands of the concerned Court by pleading everything that was against the petitioners which the petitioners were to defend. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, is the submission of the learned senior counsel.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri K.N. Phanindra representing the 1st respondent/plaintiff takes this Court through an earlier litigation of the year 2022 in which the 2nd petitioner has suffered a restraint order. He would submit that this is only a continuation of that restraint order. These petitioners need not have been parties before the concerned Court, as the prayer that was sought in the suit was to restrain social media platforms from a particular action. It did not concern these petitioners. Therefore, on the ground that they were not made parties, the order cannot be interfered with.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The 1st petitioner is a journalist and the averment is that he is journalist of a considerable repute. The 2nd petitioner is the registered company under the Companies Act, 2013 incorporated in the name and style of BTV Kannada Private Limited. The dispute between the 1st respondent and the petitioners galore. A suit in O.S.No.584 of 2022 is instituted by the 1st respondent where the 2nd petitioner is made a party/defendant and an interim injunction is obtained in favour of the plaintiff. The matter has travelled up to the Apex Court, where it is stated to be pending consideration of the orders that were passed in O.S.No.584 of 2022. Yet another suit is filed by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.7854 of 2022 seeking damages of Rs.29/- crores in which the 2nd petitioner/Company and its earlier Directors are made parties. In both the civil suits aforesa