DNYANESH MAHARAO Vs. SANATAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. Karpe, who appears along with Ms. Vaigankar for the Applicants, Mr. Joshi for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Hanumant Naik, who appears along with Mr. Aditya Naik for Respondent No. 2.

(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the present Revision was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself as the point involved in the matter is regarding refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, filed on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Karpe appearing for the Applicants/ original Defendants submitted that the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 67 of 2008 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Panaji, needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for want of cause of action qua the Plaintiff. He would submit that the suit is filed for defamation and damages by the Plaintiff who had no connection at all with the alleged publication. Mr. Karpe would submit that all articles published in Chitralekha magazine are in connection with some other Organization which is operating in Pune and Thane. It is submitted that the Plaintiff though has a similar name of its Trust, the Trustees are different and that there are no averments in the plaint that the Plaintiff is having any connection with such Organization operating in Thane and other parts of the Country. He would further submit that there is no reference to the Plaintiff's Trust or Organization, even though the Plaintiff may be operating in Goa in the same name. He then claimed that the Plaintiff's Trust was created in the year 1999 whereas the Trust or the Organization referred to in the articles was created in the year 1990. He therefore submitted that there is absolutely no cause of action for the Plaintiff or in other words no right to sue in favour of the Plaintiff accrues and hence, the plaint needs to be rejected.