The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/Defendants D3 to D5 IANO: 1OF2 24 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No 370 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Mahesh Mamindla Counsel for the Respr;ndent No2: Raghava Ramana The Court made the f,lllowing: ORDER - I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3347 OF 2024 ORDER: This is a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Trial Court') in LA.No. 126 of 2024 in O.S.No.37O of 2023, dated 28.O6.2024, whereby, the petition filed under Order VII, Rule I 1 (a) and (d) of CPC has been dismissed refusing to grant pra,yer for rejection of plaint.

2. Heard Sri Mahesh Mamir-rd1a, learned counsel for the petitioners / defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K. Raghava Ramana, learned counsei for respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2.

3. The parties are referred as they are referred in the suit. The petitioners are defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respondent Nos. I and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the main suit. Facts of the case:

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration, injunction, damages and compensation for 1 l -! the defamatory zrrticles published by defendzrnts;. The suit is sought to be re;ected by {iling a petition vide I.A.No.126 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Clivil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) i.e. for non-disclosure ol cause of action artd as barred by lar.r'. \Mith respect to cause of action, it is pleaded that there is no clisclosure about the market sourccs, i.e. name of persons who came to know about the article putrlished b1. the defendants, rvhich according to the plaintilfs are defamatorv Further, there is no evidence to prove that the contents of the articles are ferlse and malicious. With respect to t he suit being barred by law, it is pleaded that there is a need to t:nclose a copy of Board Resolution to the plaint and there is no rruthentication ald therefore there is violation of provisions of ()rrlcr XXIX, Rule 1 of CPC r/w Rr.rle 22 and 23 of Civil Rules of Pra<:tice, as such, the suit is barre,l by law.

5. The plaintilf No.2 opposed the petition alleging that the pleadings of tl-re plaint clearly revealed the cause of action as the suit is not on15 filed by the plaintiff No.l company but also plaintiff No.2 ir his individual capacity for the defamatory contents published by defendant Nos.1 and 2 again:;t him

6. Upon examining the version of both parties together with the judgments relied upon by them, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition, leading to liling of the present Civil Revision Petition. Grounds of Revision:

7. In grounds of revision, reference is made to requirement of frling Board Resolution under Order XXIX, Rule I of CPC as per judgment in State Bank of Travancore v- M/ s. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd. l2ol1 SCC Online SC 378). In the instant case too, liquidation proceedings are underway from

12.12-2023 and the sarne was inlormed to the Trial Court vide memo dated 12.06.2024. Said fact was not considered. There is no Board Resolution to institute the suit and there is no valid cause of action. According to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they are protected under the Fair Comment Doctrine which provides publication of opinions on matters of public concern. The liquidation and linancia-l mismanagement of plaintiff No.l are public matters and therefore, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to exercise journalistic freedom. The Trial Court failed to scrutinize the procedural lapses and thereby, erroneously "t .l .+ dismissed the petition to reject the plaint. Since plaintiff No.1 is under liquidation, the liquidator is the las{ul custodian of company affairs. There is failure to notify the liquidator and therefore, the suit is to be dismissed. Lastly, it is pleaded that no evidence is produced to substantiate that the articles published are malicious or false. According to defendant Nos. I and 2, mere allegation of reputational damage is not suffic rent u'hen the articles are based on verihable facts. The suit is liled onlv to harass the defendants and to prevent them from t:xercising their right to free speech, as such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and suit be rejected. Contentions ofthe petitioners/defendant lYos.l and 2:

8. During arguments, learned counsel for the defendant Nos. I and 2 argued that the plaint does not reveal cause of action. Mere allegation of defamation is not sufficient but there is a need to prove the delamation demonstrating that the allegations made in the articles are false and malicious. Further, it is argued that plaintiff No. I is a company, that plaintiff No.2 requires a Board Resolution to verify the pleadings on behalf of the compan_y. No such Board Resolution is produced and therefore. the plaint cannot be presented before the court nor can it be taken on file, --- as such, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and -5 plaint be rejected. Contentions of the respondent No.2 /plaintill No.2:

9. The learned counsel for piaintiff No.2 argued that the cause of action is the bundle of facts which needs to be ascertained by taking the pieadings of the plaint in its entirety but not in isolation. The contents of plaint reveal cause of action for suing defendants lor defamation. It is argued that plaintilf No. 1 company and the same is represented by its Managing Director i.e. plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 being Managing Director, he does not require any Board Resolution to represent the compaly in any matter, as such, there is no ground lor rejection of the plaint and being barred by law. As such, opposed the revision petition. Findings ofthe Court:

10. For the purpose of ascertaining the merits in the case of plaintiffs, when the plaint is perused, it is seen that there is a lengthy plaint which begins with narration about the history of plaintilf No.l until its derecognition and appointment of a liquidator coupled with U-Tube links wherein articles are published by defendant Nos.1 and 2 making false allegations about plaintiff No.2. The plaint not oniy contains contents which I 6 - are supposed to be defamatory but explanation is; given for the defamatory :rllt:gations made. The plaint contzrins about 52 paragraphs containing pleadings in detail which according to the plaintiffs constitute a case for defamation against the defendants. Whether the contents of said articles are true or false or arnounts to defamation or not are issues of fact which can only be decided after full-fledged trial. At this juncture in the summalv proceedings of interlocutory proceedings, the Trial Court could not have ventured to give a f-rnding about the truth or othenvise of the allegations made by the plaintiffs against the delendants Therefore, the suit cannot be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. i 1. Coming to the next ground of suit being barred bl lzru, the said conclusion has to be drawn from the pleadings of the plaint alone an<i no c,ther pleadings of the defendants or the documents filed by the dr:lendants can be looked into. In the instant case, the suit is lllecl by the plaintiffs with plaintiff No.1, a company being represerLted by plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.1 company is under liquidation and therefore, it is the liquidator who has to verify the ple;rdings according to defendant Nos;. 1 and 2 since '/ .- I 1 plaintiff No.2 ceases to be the Managing Director ol the plaintiff No.l company which is already under liquidation. From one angle, rvhen the case of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is taken on face value, when plaintiff No.2 is not a representative of plaintiff No. I company, the plaint can still be examined to see if the allegations made against the defendants can be sustained rvith respect to plaintiff No.2 in his individual capacity and ascertain u,hether the defendants have defamed plaintiff No.2. Alternativelv, even ln case, plaintiff No.2 is considered to be the Managing Director of plaintiff No. I company, as per the judgment of the High Court of Bombav in the case between Alcon Electronics Rrt. Ltd. v Celem S.A.t, wherein, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar2, it is held that "when there is no specific resolution passed by the plaintiff comparry authorizing its director to file a suit on behalf of the company, the plaint cannot be rejected on the face of it. It may amount at the most a procedural irregularity in filing a suit which can be cured even during the pendency of such suit and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on that ground". 'NtaNUlNaH/t:4sl2ot+ I lroso; o scc roo I f s \.1 - I I \

12. In vieu' of the aforementioned judgment, the very factum of non-passing of .e Board Resolution cannot be ground for rejection of plaint as saic defect can be cured even during the pendency of the suit. In addition, since plaintiff No.2 is a Managing Director whether a Board Resolution is necessary or not, is also a point that can be decided by the Trial Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no merits in the petition to reject the plaint neither for non-disciosure of cause of action nor as barred by la',v. As such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to tre dismissed.

13. [n the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the CRP, Miscellaleous Petitions, pencling if any, stand disposed of as infructuous Sd/- S. MAI-LIKARJUNA RAO ASSIS'IANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Hon'ble XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad (with records if anY)

2. One CC to SRl. IVahesh Mamindla, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl.K Raghava Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies .IA/PSL .\ l HIGH COURT DATED 0l/09/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3347 of 2022 15 0tT ruf \{ IL RI]VISION P[I-I'I IION tS DISMISSED I\o \I\ // Vl