THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3347 OF 2024

ORDER:

This is a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in I.A.No.126 of 2024 in O.S.No.370 of 2023, dated 28.06.2024, whereby, the petition filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC has been dismissed refusing to grant prayer for rejection of plaint.

2. Heard Sri Mahesh Mamindla, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K. Raghava Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2.

3. The parties are referred as they are referred in the suit. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 and 2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the main suit.

Facts of the case:

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration, injunction, damages and compensation for the defamatory articles published by defendants. The suit is sought to be rejected by filing a petition vide I.A.No.126 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) i.e. for non-disclosure of cause of action and as barred by law. With respect to cause of action, it is pleaded that there is no disclosure about the market sources i.e. name of persons who came to know about the article published by the defendants, which according to the plaintiffs are defamatory. Further, there is no evidence to prove that the contents of the articles are false and malicious. With respect to the suit being barred by law, it is pleaded that there is a need to enclose a copy of Board Resolution to the plaint and there is no authentication and therefore there is violation of provisions of Order XXIX, Rule 1 of CPC r/w Rule 22 and 23 of Civil Rules of Practice, as such, the suit is barred by law.

5. The plaintiff No.2 opposed the petition alleging that the pleadings of the plaint clearly revealed the cause of action as the suit is not only filed by the plaintiff No.1 company but also plaintiff No.2 in his individual capacity for the defamatory contents published by defendant Nos.1 and 2 against him.

6. Upon examining the version of both parties together with the judgments relied upon by them, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition, leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

Grounds of Revision:

7. In grounds of revision, reference is made to requirement of filing Board Resolution under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of CPC as per judgment in State Bank of Travancore v. M/s. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd. {2011 SCC Online SC 378}. In the instant case too, liquidation proceedings are underway from 12.12.2023 and the same was informed to the Trial Court vide memo dated 12.06.2024. Said fact was not considered. There is no Board Resolution to institute the suit and there is no valid cause of action. According to defendant Nos.1 and 2, they are protected under the Fair Comment Doctrine which provides publication of opinions on matters of public concern. The liquidation and financial mismanagement of plaintiff No.1 are public matters and therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to exercise journalistic freedom. The Trial Court failed to scrutinize the procedural lapses and thereby, erroneously dismissed the petition to reject the plaint. Since plaintiff No.1 is under liquidation, the liquidator is the lawful custodian of company affairs. There is failure to notify the liquidator and therefore, the suit is to be dismissed. Lastly, it is pleaded that no evidence is produced to substantiate that the articles published are malicious or false. According to defendant Nos.1 and 2, mere allegation of reputational damage is not sufficient when the articles are based on verifiable facts. The suit is filed only to harass the defendants and to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech,