LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-146

RAMESH AGARWAL Vs. KAPIL SONKAR

Decided On July 25, 2016
RAMESH AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
Kapil Sonkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of parties at motion stage. The petitioner has filed this present revision challenging the order dated dated 03/03/2015 passed by VIII ADJ, Indore in civil suit No.1-B/2014 whereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 readwith Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for damages against the present petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 on the basis of an article published on 25/03/2014 in the Indore Edition of the Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" which allegedly defamed the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The said civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No.1-B/2014 and same is filed on the ground that respondent No.1/plaintiff is a permanent resident of Indore City and belongs to a reputed family. Respondent No.1/plaintiff and his father is having a well known name in Indore City and nearby places. Respondent No.1/plaintiff is running a Hotel at Servate Bus Stand by name of Hotel Ranjeet. It is further alleged that petitioner/defendant No.1 is owner of daily Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar", Indore Edition, respondent No.2 is the Editor of said Newspaper, respondent No.3 is the publisher and printer of said Newspaper and respondent No.4 is local editor of the said Newspaper. Thus, all the defendants are responsible for the news published in the said Newspaper.

(3.) Respondent No.1/plaintiff further alleged that all the defendants conspired together to published defamatory news items to defame the plaintiff and to blackmail him. That petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 readwith Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC wherein it has been stated that petitioner/defendant No.1 is not the owner of Newspaper "Dainik Bhasker" described by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in the plaint and the said fact is verifiable from the documents filed alongwith plaint. It has further been alleged in the application that petitioner/defendant No.1 has no involvement whatsoever and no control over the selection of the matter which is to be published in the Newspaper. The responsibility of selecting the matter to be published in any newspaper is that of the Editor.