NAVIN DAS Vs. RANJITA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 496 of 2014 allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. and restraining the opposite party -appellants from publishing any statement with malice, which is defamatory in nature, against the petitioner -respondent's husband and father -in - law in their newspaper "Satya -ra Swara Nirbhay" till final disposal of the suit, is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Civil Suit No. 7240 of 2014 has been filed claiming punitive and compensatory damages amounting to Rs.10.00 crores and to declare the news items published in the newspaper, namely, "Satya -ra Swara Nirbhay" tarnishing the image of the plaintiff's father -in -law and her husband to be defamatory and libelous and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff (respondent herein) in the plaint contended that she is the wife of Sri Pranab Kumar Balabantaray, a sitting Member of Odisha Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) and is also the daughter -in -law of Kalpataru Das (now dead), a former Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). The said Kalpataru Das was also the former Cabinet Minister being a member of the Odisha Legislative Assembly during the period from August, 2012 to 12.02.2014. Both of them are social workers and tried their level best to work for welfare of the public at large. Both of them also hold high reputation in the State of Odisha as well as in the political domain of the State. The defendant No.1 is the Editor, Printer and Publisher and defendant no.2 is the owner of the newspaper, namely, "Satya -ra Swara Nirbhay". While the matter stood thus, there were some news reports regarding illegal allotment of lands and houses under discretionary quota by the Development Authorities of Cuttack and Bhubaneswar against plaintiff's father in -law and her husband. After publication of such news items, plaintiff's husband surrendered the flat allotted in his name on moral ground. Taking such advantage, the defendants published various offending news items by giving a different colour to it which grossly damaged the social reputation, prestige and dignity of her family including her father -in -law and husband. The news items and articles were portrayed in a way which were extremely derogatory in nature and were deliberately added with colour so as to create a negative image of the plaintiff's father - in -law, husband and other family members. Those were also deliberately worded and designed to give negative slant to the truth so as to present a completely distorted image of plaintiff's father -in - law and husband. She also gave certain illustration of such news publication in the plaint. Hence, the suit was filed for the aforesaid relief. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the defendants (appellants herein) from publishing any defamatory news items on libelous material which would tarnish the image of plaintiff's husband, father -in -law as well as other family members.

(3.) The defendants filed their objections refuting the allegations made in the plaint as well as in the interim application. They contended that the petition is not maintainable both in fact and law. They also contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as well as the interim application as there has been no defamatory and libelous imputation against her. A person who is alleged to have been defamed has only the right to maintain such a petition and the suit as well. It is a right in personam and not in rem. They further contended that no defamatory articles were published in the newspaper against the husband and father -in -law of the plaintiff. The news items published are based on fact. When Sri Pranab Balabanta Ray and Sri Kalpataru Das had not filed any suit, it can be said that they are not aggrieved of such news publication. Thus, the suit at the instance of a third person is not maintainable so also the interim application. Not a solitary condition for grant of temporary injunction has been satisfied in the case. Thus, the interim application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.