STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SH LALSANGBERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The present respondent as plaintiff had filed a suit being Declaratory Suit No. 1/2012 before the learned Civil Judge-III, Aizawl against the respondent/present appellant for declaration that the appellants/defendant have no right to publish the photograph of the plaintiff/respondent in all leading newspapers. The learned trial Court, after taking evidence and hearing the parties had passed the judgment and order dated 21.8.2012 restraining the appellants from publishing the photograph of the plaintiff along with his name in any manner in connection with default of repayment of loan by the plaintiff even if they are to publish the name of the plaintiff for default of repayment of his loan. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Court and the appeal was registered as RFA No. 29/2012. After hearing the parties, the first appellate Court passed a final order dated 11.2.2013 dismissing the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that before the learned trial Court, the plaintiff had prayed for a relief and a decree declaring that the defendant had no right to publish the photograph of the plaintiff in any newspapers. He, however, submits that the learned trial Court had gone beyond the prayer of the plaintiff to the extent that the name of the plaintiff should not be published in any newspapers even if the plaintiff/respondent had a default in repayment of loan. He also submits that the learned Appellate Court had erred in law in upholding the judgment and order dated 21.8.2012 passed by the learned trial Court without properly appreciating column 14(a) of the Agreement. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submits that the learned trial Court had failed to consider the implication of column 14 (a) of the Agreement and had failed to appreciate the fact that with the change of trend, the borrower(s) find newer and better method to avoid repayment of loan and therefore the appellants are also entitled to invent better method to recover their loan amount and the appellants have decided to publish the photo of the plaintiff/respondent. He also places reliance in the case of D.J. Exim(India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs- State Bank of India & Ors decided by the Bombay High Court in WP(L) No. 2808/2013.