Seetharam Venkataramana and Others vs J. Krishna Palemar

B.S. Patil, J.—In this appeal, appellants are calling in question the order dated 22.09.2012 passed by the Court below granting temporary injunction against them restraining them from printing or publishing any defamatory or false articles concerning the respondent herein in the newspaper or periodicals till the disposal of the suit.

It is not in dispute that appellant No. 1 is the Director, appellant No. 2 is the Managing Director and appellant No. 3 is the Editor and Publisher of the Kannada Daily Newspaper ''Karavali Ale" and Daily Newspaper ''Canara Times'' and Jana Antharanga''. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 118/2011 seeking compensation byway of damages in a sum of Rs. Two Crores for the alleged defamatory articles published against him by the defendants � appellants herein.

An application seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing any further defamatory statement and articles in their newspapers was sought by the plaintiff. The said application was considered. The trial court has granted an order of Temporary injunction. The said order reads as under:-

The defendants are hereby temporarily restrained from printing or publishing any defamatory or false articles with respect to the plaintiff in their Newspaper/Periodicals till the disposal of this suit"

The court below has found that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case against the defendants for grant of such an order of temporary injunction. It has held that plaintiff was am Ex-District In-charge Minister, elected as Member of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from Surathkal constituency in Dakshina Kannada District; at the time of filing the suit he was a Minister of Ecology, Port and Environment, apart from being District In-charge Minister.

The defendants in their newspapers and periodical published a news item with a caption the English translation of which reads as under:

"There was no restriction for the supporters of Palemar in illegal transportation of sand. The Canyons politicians with sand mafia".

The Articles published in the respective newspapers and periodical on 02.07.2010, 03.07.2010, 07.07.2010 and 16.07.2010 have been extracted by the court below in the body of its order. Plaintiff has asserted that facts stated in the said articles were wholly incorrect and were made only to defame him.

Defendants in their objections contended that whatever publication had been made related to true facts and that they did not published any defamatory articles.

The trial court has found that defendants have not produced any prima-facie material to show that plaintiff was involved in any dealings such as illegal sand transportation by himself or his supporters; the publication of the articles having been admitted by the defendants, having regard to the position that the plaintiff held as a Minister, the publication of such articles without any basis would prima facie affect the reputation of the plaintiff.

The court below has taken note of the fact that even after an ex-parte order of injunction was passed, the defendants did not stop publishing the articles relating to the plaintiff, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chitroopa Palit and Another, , there was no justification to deny the interim relief sought for by the defendants as prima-facie case was made out. The court below was of the view that the matter required serious consideration and hence an interim order deserved to be granted.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that whatever defendants have published was only true facts as ascertained by the defendants being responsible publishers and editor of the daily newspapers; in public interest they have published the news item without any intention to defame the plaintiff and only with a sole intention of bringing to the knowledge of the general public true facts.

He further submits that defendants do not intend to publish any defamatory or false articles against the plaintiff. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that though similar articles have been published in different newspapers, the plaintiff has not proceeded against those newspapers for the reasons best known to him.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of materials on record, I find that the Court below has taken note of the nature of the articles published involving the plaintiff. The kind of allegations that are made against the plaintiff who was, at the relevant point of time, a Minister in the State Government and the fact that even after granting an ex-parte order of temporary injunction, certain articles were published against him making allegations, the Court below has having referred to the nature of the articles involving the plaintiff in several allegations has come to the conclusion that appellants - defendants did not produce any material to substantiate the allegations though they had contended that what was published was only true facts involving the plaintiff. It is in this background the trial court has persuaded itself to record a finding that a prima-facie case was made out by the plaintiff to prevent the defendants from continuing to print or publish any defamatory or false articles in their newspapers/periodical till the disposal of the suit.

It has to be stated here that defendants have no right to publish any defamatory or false articles involving the plaintiff. They have undoubtedly every right to publish articles reflecting true facts keeping in mind the interest of the public. There is no restraint order passed in this regard against the defendants � appellants. They are only prevented from printing or publish any defamatory and false articles against the plaintiff.

It is also necessary to notice that though this order has been passed restraining the defendants from publishing any defamatory and false articles way back on 22.09.2012, the restraint order has been operating for the last three years. Therefore at this stage, when the matter is coming up for admission, for the first time there is absolutely no justification to interfere with the impugned order, as by this time, the suit itself must have been ripe for disposal.

Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.

Hence the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.