Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.7 R.11 — Rejection/return of plaint — Territorial jurisdiction — Scope
While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averments in plaint are to be considered — Defence taken in written statement or extraneous material irrelevant — Jurisdictional objection must be decided solely on plaint pleadings.
[Paras 7–8]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S.19 — Suits for compensation for wrong to person — Defamation — Place of suing
Suit for damages for libel and slander governed by Section 19 CPC — Plaintiff can sue only at place where defamatory statement was published or where defendant resides/carries on business — Mere alleged impact or ramification of defamation at plaintiff’s place of business does not confer jurisdiction.
[Paras 8–9, 18]
Defamation — Publication — Meaning — Pleadings in court
In defamation, “publication” is sine qua non — Filing of allegedly defamatory pleadings before a court constitutes publication at that place only — Absence of pleading that statements were published or circulated within jurisdiction of Srinagar — No cause of action there.
[Paras 8–9]
Territorial jurisdiction — Plaintiff’s place of residence/business — Irrelevance
Place of residence, registered office, or business of plaintiff is irrelevant for determining jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC — Jurisdiction depends solely on place of publication or defendant’s residence/business.
[Paras 8–9]
Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Consequence of lack of jurisdiction
Where court finds it lacks territorial jurisdiction, it cannot examine merits or existence of cause of action — Proper course is return of plaint for presentation before competent court.
[Para 18]
Defamation suits — Forum shopping — Judicial disapproval
Dragging defendants to a far-off forum where neither publication occurred nor defendants reside amounts to abuse of process — Section 19 CPC cannot be expanded to permit forum shopping on plea of reputational impact alone.
[Paras 8–9]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The appeal under Order XLIII CPC challenged an order of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction in a suit seeking ₹50 crores as damages for libel and slander.
[Paras 1–2, 18]
2. Plaintiffs’ Case
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and defamatory statements:
in pleadings filed before courts at New Delhi, and
orally at the plaintiffs’ office in Hauz Khas, New Delhi,
causing loss of reputation, goodwill, and business, allegedly extending to Srinagar (J&K) where plaintiffs claimed to have their registered/principal office.
[Paras 5, 8]
3. Defendants’ Objection
The defendants contended that:
alleged defamatory statements were made only in Delhi,
defendants resided and carried on business in Delhi, and
therefore, only Delhi courts had jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC.
An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed seeking rejection/return of plaint.
[Paras 2–4]
4. Legal Test under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
The Court reiterated settled law that:
only plaint averments are relevant,
written statement and defence pleas are immaterial, and
jurisdiction must be decided on plaint alone.
Reliance placed on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Srihari Hanumandas Totala.
[Para 7]
5. Section 19 CPC — Interpretation Applied
The Court analysed Section 19 CPC, holding that in suits for compensation for defamation:
“wrong done” means publication of defamatory material,
jurisdiction lies either where publication occurred or where defendant resides/carries on business, and
plaintiff’s residence or place of business is legally irrelevant.
[Paras 8–9]
6. Meaning of “Publication” in Defamation
The Court held that:
publication occurred only by filing pleadings before courts at Delhi,
there was no averment that defamatory statements were published or circulated in Srinagar, and
mere allegation of reputational impact in Srinagar does not constitute publication there.
[Paras 8–9]
7. Rejection of “Ramification” Theory
The plaintiffs’ argument that reputational harm was felt in Srinagar because of their business presence was rejected.
The Court held that Section 19 CPC does not recognise place of impact as a jurisdictional factor unless accompanied by publication.
[Paras 8–9]
8. Consequence of Lack of Jurisdiction
Having found that:
neither publication occurred in Srinagar, nor
defendants resided or carried on business there,
the Court held that the trial court correctly returned the plaint and rightly refrained from examining merits or cause of action.
[Para 18]
9. Final Holding
The appeal was dismissed.
The order returning the plaint for presentation before the competent court at Delhi was upheld.
Interim directions, if any, stood vacated.
[Para 18]
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for damages for defamation, territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC lies only at the place where the defamatory statement is published or where the defendant resides/carries on business. Mere allegation that reputational impact was felt at the plaintiff’s place of business does not confer jurisdiction. Where neither publication nor defendant’s residence is within the forum, the plaint must be returned under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment