GOPAL KRISHNA PREMI Vs. TARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2003 passed by the Court of 1 st Additional District Judge, Guna, dismissing thereby the plaintiff s suit.

(2.) Briefly stated relevant facts are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction with allegations that he, being a social worker, submitted an application before defendant/respondent No.5 through defendant/respondent No.4 for seeking permission for publication of newspaper in the name of "Alap", which was granted vide letter dated 22.06.1999. Copy of the same was also forwarded to respondent No.4. Plaintiff, thereafter, appointed defendant No.2 as Printer and submitted a declaration in accordance with provisions of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867. Plaintiff had directed defendant No.2 to submit a declaration, which was manipulated by defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.4, which was accepted. In the declaration form, defendant No.2 was wrongly shown as owner of the newspaper "Alap" and despite plaintiff s opposition, the said newspaper is being published. Plaintiff sought a declaration that he be declared as sole owner and occupant of the newspaper "Dainik Alap". He prayed for declaration of perpetual injunction, restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from publishing newspaper Dainik Alap. Further direction was sought against defendants No.4 and 5 to take appropriate action against the illegal publication of Dainik Alap through defendants No.1 to 3.

(3.) Defendant/respondents No.1 and 2 submitted a joint written statement, denying thereby the claim of the plaintiff. All the allegations levelled by the plaintiff were denied. Instead, it was stated that defendant No.2 established a Press for defendant No.1 s proposed newspaper. Accordingly, declaration form was rightly submitted, after obtaining due permission for it, Dainik Alap is being published by defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 stated in her written statement that she was appointed as Editor by the plaintiff himself. However, she having been relieved by the plaintiff is not engaged in any way with the publication of Dainik Alap. Defendant No.4 also opposed the suit of the plaintiff.