CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 344 of 2002 PETITIONER: Magna Publishers Co. Ltd. & Ors. RESPONDENT: Shilpa S. Shetty DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It appears that vide an interim order dated 12.1.2001,
the High Court granted ad interim injunction and a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to interfere.
3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:
4. The respondent filed a suit claiming that she is a film
actress of good standing. Certain articles were published in
the magazine published by the appellants called Stardust. A
suit for damages of Rs.20 crores alleging that the articles are
defamatory in nature and would affect her career and for
injunction restraining the appellants from publishing
defamatory articles was filed. Notice of motion for interim
injunction was taken out. Learned Single Judge was of the
prima facie view that the articles deal with the personal life
and are defamatory in nature and granted interim injunction.
The interim injunction reads as follows:
“Therefore, as directed in the case of
Indian Express Newspapers (supra), a modified
injunction is hereby granted restraining the
defendants from republishing the three articles
and/or from writing and publishing any
defamatory article in the nature of the three
articles alleging that the plaintiff is having
relationship with other actors or a married
man, which will operate till the disposal of the
suit.
5. The said order dated 12.01.2001, as noted above, was
challenged in appeal.
6. Before the Division Bench, the stand was that the interim
injunction granted was beyond the prayer made in the notice
of motion. The High Court noted that in notice of motion, the
prayer was in the following terms:
“That pending the hearing and final
disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to issue an order and injunction
restraining the defendants from in any way or
manner carrying our defamatory, allegations
and imputations in future against the
plaintiff”.
7. The Division Bench was of the further view that the
Learned Single Judge had not granted interim protection
beyond what was prayed and was covered by the prayer.
8. The other stand before the Division Bench was that
moment justification is pleaded, there can be no interim
protection. This plea was also rejected stating that a person
cannot be defamed by allowing such publications in future.
Justification shall be required to be established at the time of
hearing of the suit by leading evidence.
9. There were certain other stands relating to lack of
pleadings about the reputation and character. The Division
Bench found that also to be without substance. The appeal
was accordingly dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand
taken before the Division Bench. Mr. Bhattacharye, learned
counsel for the respondent supported the order.
11. We find that the matter relates to an interim order and
while granting leave, the prayer for grant of interim relief was
refused. In other words, interim order passed by learned
Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench continues to be
operative. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, we think it proper to dispose of the appeal
without interference. We, however, request the High Court to
explore the possibility of early disposal of the suit No.36/2001.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
