IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6990 of 2007(F)
1. MAMMEN MATHEW, THE EDITOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR. THOMAS ISSAC, S/O.T.P.MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. S. SUDHEESH, AGED 53 YEARS,
3. M.N. VIJANA, AGED AROUND 65 YEARS,
4. P.V CHANDRAN, MANAGING EDITOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th May, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.8/2004, on the
file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. First respondent instituted the suit
for damages against four defendants, including the petitioner.
Petitioner is the editor of Malayala Manorama newspaper. After
framing issues on 8.6.2005, suit was originally included in the special
list. At that time, first respondent filed I.A.No.5023/2005 under Rule
17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint,
incorporating additional paragraphs in the plaint, to the effect that
defendants 2 to 4 being the editor/managing editor of the respective
magazine/newspaper, they are responsible for selection and
publication of the above explained articles in their respective
magazine/newspaper, and they have published the defamatory news
item with a shared intention to defame the reputation of the plaintiff in
the mind of the general public, and, therefore, they are officially and
personally responsible for the offending publication. Petition was
opposed by the respondent. Under Ext.P4 order, petition was allowed
W.P.(C) No.6990/2007
2
on terms holding that though petition was belated, it is necessary to
determine the real questions in controversy. This petition is filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that in the
written statement filed by the petitioner on 1.9.2004, it was
specifically pleaded that petitioner is not personally responsible for the
selection and training of the news items of the daily, and daily has
appointed separate editors for each editions, and there are no specific
pleadings to the effect that disputed news items published in the news
paper and edited by the petitioner were defamatory or that petitioner
has any ill-will or malice towards first respondent. The argument of
the learned counsel is that without considering the defence taken in
the written statement, learned Sub Judge allowed the belated
application for amendment incorporating a plea that including the
petitioner, being editors had shared an intention to defame the
reputation of first respondent in the mind of the general public.
2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order warranting interference in
exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. While allowing an application for amendment,
correctness of the amendment sought to be introduced need not be
W.P.(C) No.6990/2007
3
decided. The question is whether the amendment sought for is
necessary and would prejudice the petitioner. The argument of the
learned senior counsel is that if the amendment is allowed to stand,
petitioner will loose the right to plead that the claim is barred by
limitation. If that is the grievance, petitioner is entitled to take a
defence in the additional written statement taking up all the defence,
including the plea of limitation. Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.
