(1.) The appellants, who are portal providers, are caught in the crossfire between the two respondents in a defamation suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent.
(2.) The learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court found the allegations in the plaint and the interlocutory application sufficient to pass an interim order of restraint, with which the appellants have already complied. Next step is to serve the second respondent against whom the defamation proceedings have been take out and for that purposes the appellants were asked to disclose the address at which the second respondent could be served.
(3.) The appellants have moved an application seeking modification of that order dated 13.5.2016 to the extent it called for a disclosure from them. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.8.2016.