LAWS(DLH)-2021-7-93

J. A. JAYALAL Vs. ROHIT JHA

Decided On July 27, 2021
J. A. Jayalal Appellant
V/S
Rohit Jha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Vacation Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi dated 3rd June, 2021 whereby an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( "CPC" , for short) was disposed of in CS No.1492/2021 filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) The facts, as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are, briefly, that the appellant is the current National President of the Indian Medical Association ( "IMA" , for short), which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On 30th March, 2021, the appellant had allegedly given an interview to Mr. Morgan Lee of "Christianity Today", which was published on the website of "Christianity Today". Certain other articles and interviews were also published, which, according to the respondent/plaintiff, were derogatory of Ayurveda and Hindus. On 29th May, 2021, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for damages and defamation and sought a permanent injunction against the appellant on the ground of public nuisance and misleading the nation and its citizens, including the respondent/plaintiff. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed along with the said plaint, which was disposed of by the learned Vacation Judge vide the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2021, placed as Annexure A-1 of the record.

(3.) Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Vacation Judge had made erroneous observations as the interviews on which the respondent/plaintiff relied on were fake. Moreover, the very suit was not maintainable and therefore, the appellant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order XII Rule 6 and Section 151 CPC, which the learned Vacation Judge had not considered. The main grievance, as voiced by the learned Senior Counsel, was that the learned Vacation Judge had to consider whether there was any prime facie case disclosed, before granting an injunction, and which it had failed to do.