S.N. Manjunath Murthy vs H.B. Honnamakki Ramesh Hegde and H.A. Nagabhushana Bhatta

Jawad Rahim, J.—Order dated 06-01-2011 in OS No. 233/2004 is questioned, whereby the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for damages for defamation against the Defendants.

Petition is posted for admission. Heard.

The contextual facts are:

H.B. Honnamakki Ramesh Hegde filed a suit claiming of Rs. 15,000/- as damages for the loss of reputation and mental agony suffered by him due to defamatory article published in weekly news paper by the Defendants. In that regard he alleged that Defendant No. 2 has falsely published a report that he (Plaintiff) had misappropriated Devasthana funds. Such a publication was carried out in the weekly news paper published by the Defendant No. 1 in the name and style of ''Malaya Marutha'' Kannada weekly on June 11-18/2004.

The Petitioner entered the context in the suit as Defendant No. 1 and filed detailed written statement. Issues are framed based on the material proposition and pleadings and parties went to trial. The evidence is recorded and virtually it is reacting completion. At this juncture the Petitioner raised question regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit on the plea that the publication of ''Malays Marutha'' Kannada weekly of June 11-18/2004 was at Mudigere and not in Chickmagalur Town. Therefore, he averred that the suit filed in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge at Chikmagalur had no territorial jurisdiction.

He compelled the trial Court to raise additional issue co treat it as preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court allowed them and raised preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction. By the impugned order the trial Court held it has territorial jurisdiction and answered the issue in the negative. Assailing it this revision is filed.

The learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

(1) AIR 1961 Mys 188 - Gokaldas Melaram v. Baldevdas T. Chabria;

(2) State of Meghalaya and Others Vs. Jyotsna Das,

On perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Judge it is noticed that during evidence Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and cross examined, wherein he admitted that publication was at Mudigere Town and not at Chickmagalur Town. The learned Judge further noticed that in the cross-examination while the Petitioner tendered evidence as DW1 he had specifically admitted that news paper in question was printed in Gayathri Printers at Chickmagalur City and also was shown that it was Chickmagalur edition. On that basis the learned trial Judge held that court at Chickmagalur had territorial jurisdiction and answered the issue negatively.

Assailing it the learned Counsel submits that the view taken by the Gauhati High Court that the suit for damages could be filed at a place where the wrong done is applicable to this case, i.e., not only the place where wrong is done but place where the effect of wrong done is shown to have occurred. In other words, wrong may be done in one particular place but its effect would be in another area, then the court having territorial jurisdiction in that area could entertain the suit.

No doubt, such a view is taken in a decision in the case of State of Meghalaya and Others Vs. Jyotsna Das, but the second decision relied by the learned Counsel in the case of Gokaldas Melaram v. Baldevdas T. Chabria reported in AIR 1961 Mys 188, gives different proposition. In the later decision this Court took a view that in the case of malicious prosecution not only the place where person was subjected to such malicious prosecution but where he was served with summons will be the place to decide the territorial jurisdiction. In other words, opinion of this Court in that decision is though Plaintiff was subjected to malicious prosecution in Madras since he was served summons in Bangalore he rightly lay suit within territorial limits of Bangalore courts.

The learned Counsel has placed reliance on this decision, which virtually negates his contention urged against the impugned order.

As could be seen from the factual situation in this case the news paper "Malaya Marutha'' is published by the Defendant No. 1. The news paper is admittedly published at Gayatri Printers, Chickmagalur City and the paper in question is a Chickmagalur Edition. When the publisher shows publication is an edition of local area it presupposes its circulation in that area. The contention to the contrary is only worth rejection.

If we go on that premise then the defamatory article appearing in such news paper are deemed to have circulated in Chickmagalur City. It is gainful to refer to the Section 19 of CPC which deals with the territorial jurisdiction. Section 19 of CPC envisages, ''Where a suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the Defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limit of the jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the Plaintiff in either of the said courts.''

Therefore, in the instant case, though the Defendants are residing in Mudigere, the publication has taken place in Chickamagalur City and Plaintiff had option to file suit in Mudigere where Plaintiffs reside or where news paper carried defamatory publication. The Plaintiff has chosen the later and filed the suit in Chickmagalur City, which is permissible u/s 19 of Code of Civil Procedure.

The order impugned therefore, suffers from no infirmity legal or otherwise calling for interference. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the impugned order.