ATINDRA NARAYAN ROY Vs. HEMANTA KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule obtained by the defendant Maharani Hemanta Kumari Devi calling upon Hirendra Nath Sanyal and Satyendra Nath Mazumdar to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court for causing to be printed for circulation the allegations made in the plaint in the suit, and, tor publishing an abstract or a copy of the said plaint.

(2.) The respondent Sanyal is a relation of the plaintiff. The respondent Mazumdar is the editor of a Bengalee Newspaper called the "Ananda Bazar Patrika." This suit was filed on 7 July 1933, and the summons was served on 21 July. It appears that in the issue of the respondent Mazumdar's newspaper of 8 August 1933, the article, of which a complaint is now made, appeared. The respondent Mazumdar states that about 4 August 1933, the respondent Sanyal approached him and furnished him with a copy of the plaint and with what he describes as a summary for publication. He adds that the respondent Sanyal also asked for his assistance in arranging for the appearance of an article similar to the one com-plained of in other newspapers. In compliance with the respondent Sanyal's request, the respondent Mazumdar communicated with the editors of four other newspapers and the article in question or an article closely resembling it, in due course appeared in their columns. The respondent Sanyal has filed no affidavit denying the respondent Mazumdar's account of the manner in which he obtained the materials for the article and that account must therefore be accepted as correct.

(3.) In my opinion, the conduct of the respondent Sanyal is to be deprecated. It is suggested that his intention was merely to furnish the editor of the newspaper, with whom he was on terms of friendship with a valuable piece of news. I do not accept the suggestion for one moment, it is only a suggestion on the part of counsel and it is not supported by the oath of Sanyal. I have no doubt that Sanyal, being related to the plaintiff, thought it highly probable that the publication of the plaintiff's allegations in the press would be distasteful to the defendant, and that his motive in communicating with Mazumdar was to procure publication of matter offensive to the defendant. I have not called upon counsel for the respondent Mazumdar, because for reasons, which I shall shortly give, I do not think that there has been a contempt of Court in this case, but I desire to say that if the editors and proprietors of newspapers take upon themselve to publish copies or resumes of pleadings and similar documents, in pending suits, they do so at considerable risk. If editors regard my judgment in the light of a license to them to publish matters of this nature they are likely to find themselves gravely mistaken. I now turn to the article concerning which complaint is made. It is admitted that the article is a resume of the plaint.