SATHIYAM MEDIA VISION PRIVATE LTD. Vs. ISHA FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the defendant in C.S. No: 346 of 2017 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. The said suit is one for damages for defamation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or telecasting any material or news item which either directly or indirectly defames the plaintiff foundation. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant which is a television channel airing news items has been indulging in persistently broadcasting various programs which tend to lower the image of the plaintiff foundation and the founder of the plaintiff foundation. Setting out the content of the programmes broadcast by the defendant the plaintiff claims that the compere of the programmes can be seen to put leading questions with a view to extract a response which disparages the reputation of the plaintiff foundation and its founder. It is also stated that the only concern of the defendant is to increase the television rating points and to sensationalise by publishing the response of people who have certain grievance against the plaintiff foundation and its founder.

(2.) The defendant had filed a written statement and the suit is at a part heard stage. It is at this stage the defendant has come forward with the above application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that some of the issues which have been raised in the various broadcasts made by the defendant are subject matter of certain writ petitions pending before this court and therefore the suit will have to await the disposal of the writ petitions. It is also contended by the defendant that the evidence of PW1 does not disclose that there has been a publication of defamatory allegations against the plaintiff foundation which had had the effect of lowering the reputation or image of the plaintiff foundation and its founder in the eyes of strangers or third persons. According to the defendant in the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that a case of defamation has been made out. The third contention of the applicant/defendant in support of the application for rejection of the plaint is that several other television channels and newspapers have carried articles and broadcasts about the same set of facts or incidents that are attributed to the plaintiff foundation by the defendant and the plaintiff foundation had not taken any action against any of them and therefore the suit for defamation cannot be maintained.

(3.) This application is opposed by the plaintiff foundation basically contending that the application is ill-conceived and belated. The evidence of the first witness of the plaintiff is almost complete and he has also been cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant/defendant. It is the further contention of the plaintiff/respondent that none of the grounds that are urged by the defendant in support of its application for rejection of plaint would come within the purview or sweep of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not the case of the applicant that the plaint is barred under any law or that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. In the absence of such claim an application under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be maintained by the applicant/defendant. Whether a case of defamation has been made out, on evidence or not, is a question that is to be decided after completion of trial. The plaintiff/respondent would also further submit that the fact that it has not taken any action against other persons who had published various news items regarding the same set of facts or incidents cannot be a ground to reject the plaint.