KESHARI CHAND GOEL Vs. DINESH KR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal, preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, is directed against the order dated 16-08-2017 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in connection with Misc. (J) Case No. 48/2017 arising out of Money Suit No. 07/2017 whereby the court below had issued an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant from making or publishing any defamatory allegation against the respondents herein during the pendency of the money suit.

(3.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that there is a property dispute between the appellant and the respondents who belong to the same family. The respondents as plaintiffs have instituted Title Suit No. 16/2017 before the court of Civil Judge, Hailakandi praying for a decree declaring that the appellant herein, i.e. the defendant in the suit does not have any share in the ancestral property. The respondents had also instituted Money Suit No. 07/2017 against the appellant as defendant before the court of learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, inter alia, praying for a money decree for Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (five crores) as damages and compensation on account of tarnishing the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs/ respondents and also for causing pain, agony and mental sufferings to them. In the said money suit, the respondents had also filed Misc. (J) Case No. 48/2017 seeking an order of temporary injunction. It appears from the record that the appellant had earlier circulated a number of representations before the various authorities including the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, Hon'ble Finance Minister and other Government authorities including banks and financial institutions, inter alia, alleging that the respondents have made an attempt to deprive the appellant from the ancestral property by forging documents. According to the respondents/ plaintiffs, circulation of such letters/ representations had lowered the image and reputation of the plaintiffs/ respondents in the eye and estimation of the public. As such, the suit for damages and compensation for causing defamation of the plaintiffs/ respondents together with the application for temporary injunction.