$~5 (original side)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS)139/2020 & I.A.4364/2020, I.A.6102/2020, I.A.6103/2020 AJAY PAL SHARMA ...Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sameer Kumar and Aditya Shankar, Advs.

Versus UDAIVEER SINGH ... Defendant Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal and Mr.

Anuroop Chakravarti, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

% 28.07.2020 (video conferencing)

I.A. 6102/2020 (for condonation of delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of two days, in filing the rejoinder, is condoned. Rejoinder is taken on record.

2. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 6103/2020

1. Subject to the attested affidavit being filed within 72 hours of resumption of normal court work, exemption, as sought, is granted for the present.

2. The application is disposed of.

IA 4364/2020 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) in CS(OS)

139/2020

1. Detailed arguments were heard, on this IA, as advanced by Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the defendant and Mr. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff.

2. Consequent thereupon, it transpires that the present IA may be disposed of, without entering into the merits of the controversy.

3. For the sake of record, however, a brief allusion to the facts would be apposite.

4. The suit, as filed by the plaintiff, claims damages, is directed against a tweet, uploaded by the defendant on his Twitter handle. A snapshot of the tweet, which reveals itself, may be reproduced thus:-

5. Though, the aforesaid tweet does not name the plaintiff, the plaint avers that the man, shown standing in the photograph accompanying the tweet, resembles the plaintiff, though it is also asserted that he is not, in fact, the plaintiff. This fact, coupled with the reference, in the tweet, to an “Uchh Police Adhikari” (a high ranking police officer) and the comments, which the tweet has invited, which specifically name the plaintiff, the plaintiff would seek to allege, have resulted in his defamation at the hands of the defendant, entitling him to injunction and damages.

6. The defendant has, consequent to issuance of the summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement, in response to the plaint as well as a reply in response to the present IA. Rejoinder, thereto, has also been filed by the plaintiff.

7. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the defendant, advanced detailed submissions, to contend that the aforesaid tweet was not defamatory.

8. Additionally, Mr. Kirpal has sought to point out that the suit was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction, for which purpose, he has placed reliance on the recent judgment by a Single Judge of this Court, in Escorts Limited v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia1. He has drawn especial attention of this Court to paras 33, 34 and 37 to 46 of the said judgment, which may be reproduced thus:

“33. I have wondered, that if such is the plea, whether a plaintiff in a suit for compensation for defamation by publication on internet, has an option under Section 19 of the CPC to sue the defendant anywhere in India.

34. In my opinion, no. Section 19, while vesting an option in plaintiff, only envisages, wrong done in jurisdiction of one Court and defendant residing in jurisdiction of another Court. Merely because, with the advent of trade and commerce, wrong done to the plaintiff can be across the country, cannot expand/widen the option vested under Section 19 in the plaintiff. Reading Section 19 so, would render it arbitrary, vesting an unguided option, capable of misuse in one of the parties to the lis i.e. the plaintiff and lead to “court shopping” and “libel tourism”. There is thus a need to construe/apply Section 19, in such situations, reasonably, so as not to put a

1 2019 SCC OnLine (Del) 7607 plaintiff in such a suit, in a position disadvantageous to the defendant.

*****

37. According to paragraph 37 of the plaint itself, the defamatory tweets can be accessed, not only at New Delhi but “across the globe”. The question which arises is, whether in case of defamation alleged