S M M ABDI Vs. JANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of the Orissa High Court was filed by defendant 3 in O.S. No. 1 of 1987 which is being tried by a learned single Judge of this Court. The appeal is directed against the order passed on 7th April 1989 in Misc. Case No.11 of 1989 by the learned trial Judge permitting the respondent 1 to amend his plaint.

(2.) The aforementioned suit was initially filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubeneswer by the respondent 1 against the appellant and respondents 2, 3 and 4 praying for a decree for Rs. 1,0000000/- (one crore) to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally and to injunct the defendants permanently from publishing further libellous and defematory statements during pendency of the sut and thereafter. The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendants for publishing the article in the magazine "The Illustrated weekly of India" in its issue dt, May, 18-24, 1986 in which, as alleged by the plaintiff, libellous allegations, insinuations and innundoes were written against him. The appellant as the Special Correspondent of the Magazine was impleaded as defendant 3 in the suit similarly the respondent 3, the proprietor of the Magazine was impleaded as defendant No. 1; respondent No. 4, the Editor and Publisher of the Magazine was impleaded as defendant 2 and respondent 2 whose statements made to the appellant in course of an interview were published in the article in question was impleaded as defendant 4 in the suit. Hearing of the suit has commenced and the plaintiff's evidence has been recorded. At that stage the plaintiff filed the application to amend the plaint seaking to introduce para. 26-A in the plaint. The said paragraph is set out hereinbelow :

(3.) Defendant 3 in his objection to the petition for amendment stated, inter alia, that the amendment sought, if allowed, will change the nature and character of the suit and it will seriously affect the case of the defendant 3 against when in the plaint no case has been made out. The defendant 3 further submitted that the plea of want of territorial jurisdiction of the Court raised by him will be lost if the amendment is allowed.