In defamation cases, the burden of proof initially lies with the plaintiffs to prove defamation, after which it shifts to the defendants to prove the truth of their statements.

ORAL ORDER

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.93/2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 24.08.2023 by which, an application filed by them under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

2. (i) The suit in O.S.No.93/2020 was filed for damages due to a defamatory article circulated by the defendants on YouTube. The plaintiffs claimed that the assertions made in the circulation were false and far from truth and intended to defame them. The plaintiffs therefore claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the defendants for damaging their reputation.

(ii) The suit was contested by the defendants who inter alia contended that the defendant No.1 was a reporter of 'ºÁAiÀiï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ' a Kannada weekly news paper and a member of the Karnataka State Working Press Reporters Association. He was also the editor of '¤ªÀÄä C©üªÀÄvÀ' a Kannada weekly news paper. He claimed that whatever that was posted on YouTube, if read as a whole, did not lower the reputation of the plaintiffs in the estimation of the right thinking/reasonable members of the society. He contended that his utterances in the article posted on YouTube were substantially true, just and fair and were bonafide. He specifically asserted that the utterances made in the YouTube video were neither false nor defamatory, but based on sufficient materials sourced by the defendant No.1. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest at 14% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization towards damages for having slandered and defamed the plaintiffs and their family by causing reputational and monitory loss with severe mental trauma?

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants are intending to publish defamatory statement or photos, pictures, videos, articles relating to the plaintiffs or Asranna family or their capacity as Archakas and Trustee of Sri. Durgaparameshwari Temple, Kateel, telecasting, circulating, publishing in YouTube, Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, Twitter, T.V. News channel, newspaper or in any other media either electronic print or otherwise concerning or in relation to the plaintiffs, their family, temple any information, matter, debate/program with intention to offend or insult or defame or ridicule the plaintiffs or harm their name/goodwill/reputation?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as sought for?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for?

5. What Order or Decree?"

(iii) The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code suggesting an additional issue which is as follows:

"Whether the defendants prove that the publications caused by them as against the plaintiffs and Asranna Family are true and just?"

(iv) This application was contested by the defendants who claimed that the application was filed at a belated stage when the suit was listed for cross-examination of PW.1. Therefore, it was not bonafide and hence, prayed that the same be dismissed in limine. They also contended that the burden to prove the issues was upon the plaintiffs and that the Trial Court had rightly framed the issues in view of the assertions made in the plaint.

(v) The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the burden of proof is upon the person who brings a claim before the Court and in the case of an actionable libel, the burden of proving malice on the part of the defendants in disseminating the incriminating article, is upon the plaintiffs. It held that the burden does not shift on the defendants, merely on account of the defendants ra