The court affirmed jurisdiction to hear defamation claims where the plaintiff resides, emphasizing the need for specific jurisdictional support when alleging damage across multiple jurisdictions.

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 48471/2024 (BY DEF. 1- ORDER VII, R 10 & 11)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the instant application, which has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Mr. Raghav Awasthi, learned counsel for defendant No. 1, has taken this Court through paragraphs Nos. 17 and 18 of the plaint and contends that cumulative reading of both the paragraphs would indicate that no cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff to institute the instant civil suit. He further states that no jurisdiction arises for this Court to entertain the same.

3. Mr. Awasthi has also drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, wherein it was averred that the plaintiff is a resident of Kerala. He submits that, as per the memo of parties in the plaint, the plaintiff is stated to be a resident of Delhi, whereas the affidavit executed subsequent thereto indicates that the plaintiff is a resident of Kerala. Mr. Awasthi contends that such glaring inconsistencies in the pleadings are wholly unacceptable and render the plaintiff's case untenable. To substantiate his position that this Court does not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, learned counsel has placed reliance of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia , [12019 SCC OnLine Del 7607], and Arvind Kejriwal v. State , [22024 SCC OnLine Del 6103]

4. Moreover, Mr. Awasthi referred to paragraph 76 of the decision in Arvind Kejriwal and paragraphs 33 and 34 of the decision in Tejpal Singh Sisodia to contend that, in light of the principles enunciated therein and the circumstances outlined, the instant civil suit deserves to be dismissed. In the alternative, he submits that the plaint ought to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. The aforesaid submissions are strongly opposed by Mr. Abhik Chimni, learned counsel who appears for the plaintiff.

6. Mr. Chimni, at the outset, submits that on account of some inadvertent error, the affidavit states that the plaintiff resides in Kerala; however, according to him, the documents which have been filed along with the plaint unequivocally state that the plaintiff is also a resident of Delhi. He has also submitted that in the memo of parties, the residence of the plaintiff is shown to be in Delhi at Anand Lok, New Delhi-110024. He further contends that the affidavit also mentions that the plaintiff presently resides at Delhi, and thus, to that effect, there is no inconsistency on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

7. He further contends that the defendants no.3 and no.4 which are amplifying the said defamatory content have a presence within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, he contends that in paragraph 18 of the plaint, the specific averments that the plaintiff is a resident of Delhi, and the defamatory content are accessible and injuring her reputation, are made. It is thus, for the reasons elaborated in paragraph 17 and 18, that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.

8. Mr. Chimni, further submits that the scope of the instant application is to be confined to the plaint and the documents relied on by the plaintiff alone. On the anvil of this position, he draws the attention of the Court to Document No. 4 to indicate that the defamatory statement has been further amplified by various people and in view of the same, the general public has been privy to the insult and damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. He contends that a ba