ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against allowing of application, wherein injunction is granted restraining the appellants/defendants from making any derogatory, defamatory, untruthful and obnoxious statements in any other form whatsoever till disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff company has engaged in real estate projects and development of properties into residential projects, commercial projects and business. The defendants are a group of apartment owners, who have purchased their respective apartment units from the plaintiff. Upon completion of the project, the plaintiff was preparing to transfer maintenance responsibilities of the apartment project to the Apartment Owner’s Association as per the agreed terms under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, the defendants and other collective members prepared to form a co-operative society with some hidden agenda of transferring the project land in their names. The defendants made scandalous and reckless allegations against the plaintiff, in order to gain membership and also with ulterior motive to get the property conveyed in the proposed co-operative society.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have created a group on Telegram and Whatsapp known as “KL Owners Welfare Forum and KL Owners Welfare Group”. In the social platform ‘MyGate’ for the Klassic Landowners, the defendant No.1 makes derogatory remarks against the builder employees, relatives and customers by calling them a ‘shoddy group’, ‘shameless followers’, ‘cheater’, ‘jokers’ and ‘goons’. Also spreading false information stating that the “builders have been cheating home buyers in the name of UDS under KADA, 1972 Act and remortgaging land”. Due to which, the plaintiff has incurred considerable damages as a result of the widely disseminated defamatory remarks issued by the plaintiff and many homebuyers hesitated to acquire the apartment unit. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of temporary injunction and also claimed damages and also inter-alia sought for the relief of temporary injunction.

5. The defendants filed the objections denying all the averments made in the plaint and also the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is contended that the statements published on ‘MyGate’ platform are not defamatory as the same are true statements and opinions as to the events that has occurred as a result of the ongoing and concluded litigations between the plaintiff and defendants. It is contended that free speech has been held to be paramount importance. The right to speech must remain unimpeded, except when it leads to commission of wrongful act or words published or spoken are execution facie untrue and resisted the application and also filed application I.A.No.4 to set aside the exparte order.

6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged and also the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC formulated the point with regard to cardinal principle of temporary injunction and having considered the material on record, particularly the pleadings made by the plaintiff as well as the statement of objections, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16, having considered the statement made by the defendants, particularly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 comes to the conclusion that the same is defamatory in nature and it harms the reputation of the plaintiff-company and though it is contended that Whatsapp messages are not supported by any Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and comes to the conclusion that the group has provided information and they have every right to express their information about the plaintiff company and the same is not defamatory against plaintiff company. The defendants have admittedly as per Constitution have right to speech, but the right to speech s