IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

MR SUDESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEAS EDITOR, PRINTER, PUBLSIER &

OWNER OF 'KARAVALI MARUTHA'

KANNADA WEEKLY MAGAZINE II FLOOR, GANESH MAHAL COMPLEX K.S RAO ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR RAHIM UCHIL (ALIAS ABDUL RAHIM)

S/O LATE K ABDULLA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S AGED 44 YEARS Location: H IGH R/AT A-102, CASA GRANDE COURT OF KARNATAKA ATTAVAR, MANGALURU-575 001

2. MR ISMAIL MOODUSHEDDE S/O LATE ABDUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SALPADAVU, MOODUSHEDDE VAMANJOOR, MANGALURU-575 005 …RESPONDENTS (BY NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2019 PASSED IN RA NO 130/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.06.2016 PASSED IN OS NO 31/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU.D.K.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

Defendant No.1 has filed this regular second appeal.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for damages for defamation and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff contended that he is a respectable and responsible citizen of India and he has a popular personality at D.K., Mangaluru.

3. Defendant No.1 is the publisher of 'Karavali Marutha' having a wide circulation in various parts of the undivided Dakshina Kannada District. Defendant No.2 is an editor, publisher and owner of a magazine namely 'Lati Charge' which was stopped due to Government restrictions. Defendant No.2 had worked with the plaintiff in making tele film. At that time, he developed jealousy and envy against the plaintiff due to the popularity and success of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the defendants who are friends, have colluded each other and hatched conspiracy to commit defamation to the plaintiff. Accordingly, on 17.12.2010, in the front page of a magazine run by defendant No.1 'Karavali Marutha' as stated supra, published a defamatory article and the same is read by several people and hence the name and fame of the plaintiff is defamed. Accordingly, he filed the suit for seeking compensation for damages and prohibitory injunction.

4. After service of the suit summons to the defendants, the defendants appeared through their respective advocates and the defendants have filed the written statement by denying the allegation made in the suit that at no point of time defendants have published articles with an ulterior motive to defame the image of the plaintiff. According to defendant No.1, being a media person has fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India as exercised his right.

5. The Trial Court after considering the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit with cost and directed defendant Nos.1 and 2 to jointly pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of suit till the actual payment towards the damages to the plaintiff.

6. On appeal, the First Appellate Court upon reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.1 by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, defendant No.1 has filed this appeal before this Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Rajashekar S., for the appellant. However, though notice served to the respondents, they remained unrepresented.

8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court t