ORDER

% 15.01.2024 I.A. 962/2024 & I.A. 963/2024 (for exemption) The application for exemption is allowed, subject to the plaintiffs granting inspection of the documents filed, as and when required to do so, or filing the original documents at the stage of admission/denial.

The applications stand disposed of.

CS(OS) 38/2024

1. The plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Dasti service in addition is permitted. Affidavit of service be filed within one week.

2. The summons shall indicate that written statements must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The defendants shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.

3. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replications thereto within fifteen days after filing of the written statements. The replications shall be accompanied by affidavits of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendants, failing which the replications shall not be taken on record.

4. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

5. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

6. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, marking of exhibits and admission/denial of documents on 04.03.2024.

7. List before the Court on 16.04.2024. I.A. 961/2024 (Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2)

1. Issue notice. Notice may be served upon the defendants by all permissible modes. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Affidavit of service be filed within one week.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 has established a YouTube Channel, and claims to be a social media influencer with approximately 28.5 million subscribers. His channel displays his video recordings of motivational advice and problem-solving. Plaintiff no.1 claims that this channel is a not-for-profit channel. Plaintiff No. 2 is business concern of plaintiff No. 1, which owns photographs taken by plaintiff No. 1, which are made available to customers for a price.

3. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 also runs a YouTube channel, which purports to provide online courses for subscription by the public. Defendant No. 2 is the business concern of defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 3 is a channel partner of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

4. The plaintiffs have filed this suit alleging various defamatory imputations by the defendants against them.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that some members of the public appeared on plaintiff No. 1’s YouTube channel and raised a grievance about courses offered by defendant No. 1. After an exchange of posts between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 ultimately filed a suit against plaintiff No. 1 and various other parties in the District Court, Faridabad. The Court, by an order dated 22.12.2023 in CS No. 3874/2023, has injuncted both sides from uploading any defamatory/disparaging videos on social media or any other online or offline mode against each other. According to the plaintiffs, despite the order of injunction, defendant No. 3, who is not a party to the suit in the Civil Court, continues to post defamatory content against the plaintiffs.

The allegedly defamatory statements have been summarized in the plaint in paragraph 21(ll).

6. To demonstrate the link between defendant No. 3 and other defendants, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, draws my attention to screenshots which have been placed on record at pages 64 and 68 of the plaintiffs’ list of documents. These screenshots are of the YouTube channel of defendant No. 3 where he describes himself as “1st Channel Partner” of defendant No. 2, and “Channel Partner with” defendant No. 1.

7. As far as defendant No. 3 is concer