KARMA LAKELANDAS PVT LTD Vs. RAVI GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three applications, GA No. 247 of 2008, GA No. 248 of 2008 and GA No. 249 of 2008, are by the three defendants seeking revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent or rejection of the plaint. The grounds urged are identical. The defendants claim that no part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction. In the alternative, they contend that even if a small part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action appears to have arisen within jurisdiction, the balance of convenience demands that the suit should not be continued before this Court. The defendants claim that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action for initiating this action for libel and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

(2.) The other application, GA No. 3048 of 2007, is the plaintiff's interlocutory application for injunction restraining similar publication as the one complained of being made.

(3.) The first ground urged by the defendants that no part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction, does not appeal. The plaintiff has pleaded that the impugned publication was contained in newspapers which have been circulated and read within jurisdiction. This plaintiff has done slightly more than making a mere averment in such regard, though even that would have sufficed for this stage. The plaintiff has relied on a certificate that the newspapers which carried the impugned public notice are circulated in the city. Since the averments in the plaint have to be accepted in a demurer application, one has only to look to the plaint as to whether there is any statement that would authorise the Court to receive the action.