IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.04.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI Tr.C.S.No.931 of 2004 Sri N.S.Veerabhadraiah .... Plaintiff Vs. 1. Sri Vishweshwar Bhat Major, Executive Managing Editor Vijaya Karnataka, No.4, Pampa Mahakavi Road Chamarajpet Bangalore 560 018 2. Sri Aravinda Shetty Major, Reporter, Vijaya Karnataka, No.4, Pampa Mahakavi Road Chamarajpet Bangalore 560 018 3.Sri Vijay Sankeshwar Major, Printer, Publisher & Owner Vijaya Karnataka, No.4, Pampa Mahakavi Road Chamarajpet Bangalore 560 018 .... Defendants Prayer: Suit filed under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a decree against the Defendants for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest. For Plaintiff : Mr.C.Rajan and Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy For Defendants: Mr.L.Rajasekar JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed the suit for damages directing the Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest for the defamatory publication made by the Defendants.
2. The Plaintiff was directly recruited as District and Sessions Judge in the year 1983 and elevated as Judge of the High Court in the month of June 1998. Initially he was appointed as Additional Judge of High Court of Karnataka and later he was made permanent. Defendants are Vijaya Karnataka News Paper and its Executive Managing Editor, Reporter and Printer and publisher. There were certain publication of news items in Defendant news papers from 8.11.2002 and on subsequent dates and all those publications were made by the Defendants in news papers alleging immoral activities in a resort of Mysore city and further alleging that the three judges of Karnataka High Court were involved in the alleged incident and that the transfer of the Judges involved in the alleged incident were being contemplated. Alleging that because of the publication of the defamatory materials, the Plaintiff has suffered acute mental agony and pain and unbearable ignominy and humiliation and that there is a loss of reputation to the family, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for damages claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Defendants.
3. By the order of the Supreme Court, the suit was transferred to this Court.
4. Resisting the suit, the Defendants have filed written statement inter alia raising various defence.
5. In the suit, following issues were framed:
“1. Whether the alleged publication in the newspaper “Vijaya Karnataka” are defamatory, having tendency to injure the Plaintiff’s reputation as Judge of the High Court and in his individual capacity?
2. Whether the reports in the news paper “Vijaya Karnataka” has harmed the reputation of the Plaintiff, lowering his moral and intellectual character in the eyes of the public, as alleged by the Plaintiff?
3. Whether the plea adopted by the Defendants that the newspaper reports complained are in substance bonafide reporting based on credible information?
4. Whether the alleged report made in the newspaper “Vijaya Karnataka” was in good faith and in public interest ?
5. Whether the news reported in the newspaper “Vijaya Karnataka” on various dates are justified in commenting on the conduct of the Judges, reducing the scope of public office for pursuing the action for damages in defamation ?
6. Whether the suit is maintainable in the light of suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court, Karnataka and observations made by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.433 of 2003 ?
7. Whether the news items, statements and reports, alleged to be defamatory, were reported by other news papers since 5.11.2002 ?
8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages of RS.2,00,000/-, as claimed in the suit?”
6. When the suit was pending trial, Plaintiff died on 12.12.2008. By order dated 23.4.2010, the application filed by the legal representatives of Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the suit is founded on torts which is purely a personal right of the plaintiff and as per Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, cause of action does not survive and the suit will stand abated.
7. In the result, the suit is dismissed as abated. No costs.
23.04.2010
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
usk
R.BANUMATHI,J.
usk JUDGMENT IN TR.C.S.NO.931 OF 2004 23.04.2010