The Court established that territorial jurisdiction exists in Bengaluru due to the sale of defamatory material affecting the plaintiffs' reputation, despite the material's publication in West Bengal.

CAV JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2024 passed on Issue No.5 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint to present the same before the competent Court of law within sixty days in O.S.No.985/2017 by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that the suit is filed against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 from reprinting, circulating or modifying and publishing in any manner whatsoever the defamatory, false and man-aligning content contained in introductory page 54 and chapter even (7th) of the book page 145 to 154 about late Manna Dey and published in the book “Tarader Sesh Chitthi” (Star’s last letter) and also sought permanent injunction against defendant No.6 to air or communicate in any manner any content specified in infringing book and also mandatory injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 5 and also direction to furnish true and fair accounts of the sale and circulation of the infringing Book in physical and virtual form and anybody acting from making, publishing, circulating and also direct the defendants to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as compensation and directing defendant No.1 to individually pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiffs towards damages.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 has engaged in a vilifying campaign against the plaintiffs by publishing an article in Anand Bazar Patrika dated 28.10.2013 and subsequently publishing a chapter in book called “Taradar Shesh Chitthi”. It is also contended that the article written by defendant No.1 about Manna Dey is false and malicious, more particularly regarding the private relationship of plaintiffs’ and Manna Dey and the said article has been published to expose plaintiffs to public hatred and ridicule and the articles which are published are defamatory in nature.

5. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also the suit is barred by limitation and also contended that the publication which are made out of right of freedom of press.

6. The Trial Court having considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the defendants, framed several Issues, Additional Issues and considered Issue No.5 as preliminary issue that is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The counsel for defendant No.1 contended that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and for the convenience of the plaintiffs, twisted the cause of action. It is contended that books are published and circulated at West Bengal and both the book and article are launched in the book fair at Kolkata, West Bengal in the month of January 2016 and the same is also in the Bengali language and book was offered by the readers within the State of West Bengal and any purported damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the said publication, the same is confined to Kolkata, West Bengal, thus, ought to have filed the suit at West Bengal not in Bengaluru. Hence, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. On the other hand, the appellants contend that the book has been circulated in all parts of India and also in Bengaluru. Therefore, damage to the plaintiffs’ reputation has been caused within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiffs right to privacy has been infringed within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have been residents of Bengaluru since 1994 and infringing book was circulated in Bengaluru. It is also contended that the right to privacy has been infringed within the jurisdiction of this Court because the sa