High Court · 2025

A.No.780 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON29.04.2025PRONOUNCED ON 23.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUA.No.780 of 2025inC.S.DR.No.24291 of 2025Dushyanth SridharApplicant(s) VsRangarajan Narasimhan“Arangan Thirumutram”Kollidam Road,(400 West of Andavan Ashramam)Srirangam, Trichy – 620 006.Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr.Sathish ParasaranSenior Counsel Mr.Rahul BalajiFor Respondent(s): Mr.Rangarajan NarasimhanParty-in-PersonORDERThe present application has been filed to grant leave to the plaintiff to sue the defendant before this Court in the present suit.2. Heard Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan, Party-in-Person for respondent.3. Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant herein enjoys a great standing and reputation. The applicant is a distinguished and highly regarded vedic scholar and orator of principles of Sanatana Dharma. His discourses are primarily in Tamil and English languages. The applicant is a popular and sought after public speakers on the topic related to religion, philosophy and spirituality. He has a wide range of followers at Chennai and he frequently visits Chennai and conducts discourses at T.Nagar in Chennai. He would submit that the respondent with an intention to malign the applicant had made defamatory and derogatory statements against the plaintiff which was also available in various social media and print media accessed by his followers in Chennai. He would further submit that such defamatory statements made by the respondent had been spoken to about to him by his followers from Chennai in particular, while he was delivering such discourses and lectures. The applicant had filed the instant suit at Chennai as part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and since the defendant resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court, it had 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025become imperative for him to file the present suit at Chennai for which he had also sought leave of this Court to sue the defendant at Chennai.4. In support of his contention, he had relied upon the judgment of the House of Lords made in Turner Vs Grovit and Others reported in (2001) UKHL 65 and the judgment of the High Court of Australia in the case of Dow Jones and Co Inc V Gutnick. Drawing strength from the judgments, he would submit that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction in the present case and the applicant being the dominus litus can chose a forum of his convenience that too where a cause of action had arisen for him to file the present suit. He had also placed reliance upon Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act and submit that where a part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit would be maintainable before this Court.5. Countering his arguments, Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan, Party-in-Person would submit that this Court do not have jurisdiction to hear the present suit. He would submit that the statement made by the respondent is neither derogatory nor defamatory. He had only pointed out the misunderstanding of the applicant on the subject and that his publication 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025was made from Trichy and has been viewed world wide. He would submit that the applicant can sue the respondent either at his place of ordinary residence or at the place where the respondent ordinarily resides. He would submit that in the present case, the plaintiff is a resident of Bengaluru and the defendant is residing at Trichy. Therefore, even if the part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, the applicant cannot be permitted to sue the defendant within the jurisdiction of this court. He would contend that if such leave is granted, then in a suit for defamation, the plaintiff would sue before a Court which may not suit both the convenience of the plaintiff and the defendant and is only to harass the defendant. Such a procedure ought not to be allowed by this Court. 6. In support of his contention, he had also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd., Vs A.Murali Krishna Reddy & Another reported in (2009) SCC Online Del 3780, Escorts Limited Vs Tejpal Singh Sisodia reported in (2019) SCC Online Del 760 and Mahadev I. Todale Vs Franfinn Aviation Services Pvt., Ltd., & Others reported in (2017) SCC Online Del 913.7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as the Party-in-Person and considered the materials available on record.8. Even though, the defendant had made a claim that the statements made by him are not per se derogatory or defamatorys, such claim made by him cannot be decided at the present stage and can only be considered at the time of finally disposing of the suit. Admittedly, a statement had been made by the respondent herein which is alleged to be derrogatory and defamatory. Such statement had been given wide publicity in social media. It is the claim of the applicant that his followers had viewed such defamatory statement at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court and had also made enquiries with regard to the statement made by the respondent. Therefore, a part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court for which the Letters Patent of this Court which was ordained in the year 1865 mandates a leave of this Court if a part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Section 19 CPC further mandates that the suit can be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in a Court where the cause of action had arisen or where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for his gain. Illustration 'b' appended to Section 19 CPC reads as follows:-5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025“...(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B, B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi...”9. The alleged statement which has been made is admitted to be made at Trichy and published in social media which was viewed even at Chennai. As already stated supra, when a part of cause of action had arised within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court exercises its power under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act. Then this Court has jurisdiction had dealt with the same such leave can be granted by this Court. The plaintiff being a dominus litus had knocked the doors of this Court and this Court is of the view that the plaintiff cannot be thrown out.10.In view of the aforesaid reasonings and findings, this Court is inclined to grant leave as prayed for. As a corollary, the Registry is directed to number the suit if it is otherwise in order. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025 23 .06.2025GbaIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/No7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.780 of 2025 K.KUMARESH BABU., J GbaPre-Delivery Order inA.No.780 of 2025inC.S.DR.No.24291 of 202523.06.20258/8