P.C. :

1. The Plaintiff, (who is an actress) has filed the captioned Suit alleging defamation at the hands of the Defendant No. 1 as more particularly detailed in the Plaint, Compilation of Articles and Additional Documents.

2. Defendant No. 1 though served has not appeared. It was thus that this Court had, on 16th December 2024, passed the following order, viz.

“P.C.

1. Stand Over to 6th January, 2024 under the caption “for ad-interim relief.”

2. If on that date, the Defendant is not represented, then Court shall proceed with the matter in the absence of the Defendant”

3. I have heard Ms. Khan, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff.

4. Ms. Khan at the outset submitted that Defendant No. 1 is the daughter of the Plaintiffs husband, from his first marriage. She then submitted that Defendant No. 1 had in the year 2020, soon after the launch of a television series titled ‘Anupama’ in which the Plaintiff had the lead role, posted the following on the Defendants Facebook page, viz.

“Does anyone know the real story of Rupali Ganguly? She has had an affair with Ashwin K Verma for twelve years while he was in his second marriage…… She is controlling and psychotic towards him…… she’s conducted acts very similar to what Riya Chakraborty has done to SSR she leads my dad’s strange medications and is very controlling.”

5. Ms. Khan then pointed out that Defendant No.1 had again, recently, begun defaming the Plaintiff inter alia by giving interviews which were widely published and circulated. Ms. Khan has tendered a complication of the said interviews given by Defendant No.1 to various newspapers/publications. The relevant extracts from some of these interviews is reproduced below in a tabular form, viz.

6. Ms. Khan, basis the above material, which she submitted was per se defamatory, also coupled with the fact that Defendant No. 1 had thought served and given ample opportunity, not appeared, she submitted that ad – interim relief be granted in favour of the Plaintiff. She submitted that with each passing day, the damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation was being compounded. She submitted that the conduct of Defendant No. 1 was also gravely prejudicing and imperiling the Plaintiff career. It was thus she submitted that this Court grant ad – interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) of the Interim Application.

7. After having heard Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and having gone through the material which has been placed before me, I find that the same are not only prima facie per se defamatory but also malicious since Defendant No.1 has in the article dated 29th November 2024 being quoted as having stated that she had targeted the Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant No. 1,has not, despite service of notice not appeared before this Court. Hence, I have no hesitation in granting ad – interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) which read thus, viz.

“a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, restrain Defendant No.1, her agents, servants, representatives, followers, or any person acting on her behalf by an order of prohibitory injunction from publishing, posting, sharing, circulating, or otherwise disseminating any defamatory, false, slanderous, or libelous statements, posts, videos, tweets, stories, or content against the Applicant through any medium, including but not limited to social media platforms, digital and print media, or other public forums, either directly or indirectly.

b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit this Hon’ble court be pleased to further restrain Defendant No.1, her agents, servants, or any person acting on her behalf from using or enabling third parties or intermediaries, including John Doe platforms, to perpetuate the defamatory and malicious campaign against the Applicant.

c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit this Hon’ble court be pleased to restrain by an Order of prohibitive injunction the Defendant No.2 including social media, platforms, print media or