THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA C.M.A. Nos. 22, 45 and 51 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1623 of 2022 and in O.S. No. 510 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-Cum- II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum- Principal Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally.

2. Heard Sri A. Chandra Sekhar, Sri T. Rajani Kanth Reddy and Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsels for the appellants and Senior Counsel Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad appearing on behalf of Sri V. Seetha Rama Avadhani learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record.

3. Since, all the three Appeals arise out of the same order in the underlying Interlocutory application and the suit, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The appellants herein are defendants in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff vide O.S. No. 510 of 2022 for recovery of damages for defamation and mandatory injunction.

5. The respondent No.1 herein, had filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1623 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC in the above said suit to restrain the appellants or their representatives, employees, agents, or any one acting on their behalf from publishing, circulating, spreading, advertising, exhibiting, screening, uploading, transmitting, broadcasting, relaying, or otherwise communicating to public, either by electronic, visual, verbal, media, reports, publications, films, Compact Discs, Pen Drives, or other electronic gadgets, devices, web magazines, journals, motion pictures, caricatures, etc., containing libelous, slanderous and defamatory contents. against the respondent No.1 and its management.

6. The trial Court vide order dated. 02.12.2022, while ordering notice to the appellants, had granted ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the respondent No.1.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the appellants have filed the present Appeals.

8. The appellants contend that the impugned order dated. 02.12.2022 passed by the trial court is a ‘gag’ order inasmuch as the said order is in violation of article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional courts had time and again emphasized that a ‘gag’ order amounts to throttling the neck of the media and imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint. Furthermore, the press is justified in telecasting, publishing, printing the truth in the interest of public which are carried in good faith and with bonafide intention and the same can't be curtailed.

9. Appellants further contend that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of "audi alterm Partem" as the said order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appellants further contend that the respondent No.1 had suppressed the fact that O.S. No. 8 of 2022 which was filed for similar reliefs, against the similar publications is pending adjudication before the I Additional District Judge at Khammam.The trial Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact while granting ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the respondent No.1.

10. The appellants further contend that the freedom of press, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India can be restricted by an individual or the State including the courts solely for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified. The impugned order is a pre-publication or Pre-telecast injunction which in turn do not come within the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

11. Per contra, respondent No.1 contend that the respondent No.1 herein is an Engineering and Infrastructure company,