1 Reserved on : 18.07.2025 Pronounced on : 01.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.213 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: NATARAJA SHARMA S/O SURYANARAYANA RAO H.N., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ADVOCATE PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT ASHWA LAW ASSOCIATES 1ST FLOOR, BHERU MANSION GANDHI BAZAAR MAIN ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.C.CHETHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . LAKSHMI RAVINDRA HEBBALKAR W/O RAVINDRA HEBBALKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HON’BLE MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 2. G.C.PRAKASH S/O CHENNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 701, A4 BLOCK GANGA APARTMENT, NGV QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034. 3 ARCHANA M. S., W/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT 101, 1ST FLOOR EVANTHARISTI JAYANAGAR, 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 070. 4 NISCHAL B.H., S/O H.GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT 41, 1ST CROSS 2ND BLOCK, ANJANEYA NAGAR BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. 5. DAIJIWORLD MEDIA PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT S1, 4/72/2, DAIJIWORLD RESIDENCY AIRPORT ROAD, BONDEL POST MANGALURU – 575 008. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 6. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 F-26, 1ST FLOOR CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI – 110 001. 7. NETWORK 18 MEDIA AND INVESTMENTS LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING MISSION ROAD, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS BENGALURU – 560 027. 8. WRITEMEN MEDIA PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT TTMC, BMTC BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, YESHWANTPUR CIRCLE YESHWANTPUR BENGALURU – 560 022. 09. TV9 KARNATAKA INDIA PVT. LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, CIVIL STATION, NO.13, RHENIUS STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 025. 10. VIOLET J.PEREIRA, PROPRIETOR AND EDITOR IN CHIEF, MANGALORE MEDIA, 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.6, 4 ESSEL WILCOM BUILDING, BENDURWELL, MANGALURU – 575 002. 11. ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PVT LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 1ST FLOOR, 8-2-337/G AND G1, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 560 034, TELENGANA STATE. 12. MANIPAL DIGITAL NETWORK PVT. LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, UDAYAVANI BUILDING, UDAYAVANI ROAD, MANIPAL – 576 104, UDUPI DISTRICT. 13. BHASKAR PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, BISHAMBAR BHAVAN, 18, CIVIC CENTRE, JABALPUR – 482 002, MADHYA PRADESH. 14. EXPRESS NETWORK PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, EXPRESS BUILDING, NO.1, 5 QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 15. ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 36, CRESCENT ROAD, OPP MALLIGE MEDICAL CENTRE, SIVANANDA CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001. 16. VRL MEDIA PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 24, 3RD FLOOR, SRI SAIRAM TOWERS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018. 17. BENNETT, COLEMAN AND CO. LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, TIMES OF INDIA BUILDING, DADABHAI NAOROJI ROAD, MUMBAI – 400 001. 18. SAMYUKTA KARNATAKA, KANNADA NEWS PAPER, REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 2ND CROSS, OPP. BISHOP COTTONS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025. 6 19. PRINTERS (MYSORE) PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 75, MG ROAD, POST BOX NO.5331, BENGALURU – 560 001. 20. KASTURI AND SONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, KASTURI BUILDING, 859 AND 860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 002. 21. THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS, REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR, NO.1, EXPRESS BUILDING, CK JAFFER SHARIEF ROAD, OPP. INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS, BENGALURU – 560 001. 22. RAVIPATI BROADCASTERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND EDITOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 10/A, CHANDRAKIRAN BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 23. ARG OUTLIER MEDIA PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 7 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, NBW BUILDING, WADIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, BOMBAY DYEING COMPOUND, PB WORLD, WORLI, MUMBAI – 400 025. 24. SARG MEDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, B-1701/1702, RAHEJA ATLANTIS CHS, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI – 400 013. 25. NEW DELHI TELEVISION NETWORK LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 207, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE III, NEW DELHI – 110 020. 26. KASTURI NEWS 24 X 7, REPRESENTED BY ITS EDITOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, NO.12 AND 12/1, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 27. TWITTER INC NOW X, REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 8TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE, 121, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 042. 28. FACEBOOK, 8 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ROHAN TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-30 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2025) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 ON IA NO.7 UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a), CPC, 1908, IN OS NO.7586/2023 PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., C/O FACEBOOK INDIA ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, UNIT NOS. 1203 AND 1204, LEVEL 12, BUILDING NO.20, RAHEJA MINDSPACE, CYBERABAD, MADHAPUR, HITECH CITY, HYDERABAD, TELENGANA STATE – 500 081. 29. GOOGLE, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, GOOGLE LLC, UNIT NO.26, THE EXECUTIVE CENTER LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 001. AND ALSO AT NO.3, RMZ INFINITY, TOWER E, OLD MADRAS ROAD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, BENGALURU – 560 016. 30. YOU TUBE, C/O GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, NO.3, RMZ INFINITY-TOWER 3, OLD MADRAS ROAD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, BENGALURU – 560 016. 9 REJECT THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.7586/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13-12-2024 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.7 filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code in O.S.No.7586 of 2023 seeking rejection of the plaint. 2. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:- Respondents 1 to 4 who are the plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.7586 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit and also seeking restraint from making any statement or any publication that would be defamatory or in effect CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 10 tarnish the image of the plaintiffs. After issuance of notice, the present petitioner/defendant No.1 in the said suit files an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, on the score that the plaint does not even divulge any cause of action and what are the statements that are defamatory are not indicated in the plaint averments. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 13-12-2024, rejects the application on the score that the plaintiffs have rightly filed the suit for permanent injunction and the plaint discloses cause of action. It is this order that has driven the 1st defendant to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri A.C. Chethan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rohan Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that plaintiff No.1 is the Minister for Women and Child Development, Government of Karnataka and other plaintiffs are senior officers of the Department. The 1st defendant is 11 the Advocate/petitioner who files a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging corruption in the Department to the tune of ₹600/- crores committed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs immediately file a suit for injunction to stop the defendants from defaming them. The 1st defendant/petitioner files an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not divulge any cause of action. The learned counsel would submit that the complaint and the complaint allegations filed before the Lokayukta were projected in a press-conference. Nothing beyond the complaint was spoken. The plaintiffs will always have a remedy to file a suit for malicious prosecution in case the Lokayukta holds that the complaint so registered is false. Reporting the contents of the complaint and the allegations mentioned therein cannot mean they would become defamation. The trial, in the civil suit, will be parallel to what the investigation is being conducted by the Lokayukta. On all these grounds, the learned counsel submits that plaint must be rejected. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that free speech under Article 19 of the 12 Constitution does not foreclose civil suits for defamation. A tort of a malicious prosecution, again, does not foreclose a suit for defamation. The proceedings before the Lokayukta have no bearing on maintainability of the suit. The scope of inquiry, in both these proceedings, are entirely different. The plaint discloses cause of action and the suit is maintainable. The order of the concerned Court does not warrant any interference. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join issue to contend that none of the contentions advanced by the petitioner, even taking the Court through the plaint averments, borne consideration at the hands of the concerned Court. Therefore, the matter must be set aside on that score as well. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The parties to the lis are the complainant/the petitioner, several officers of the Department of Women and Child 13 Development and the Minister for the Women and Child Development in the Government of Karnataka, who are plaintiffs 1 to 4. The petitioner/1st defendant lodges a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging corruption to the tune of ₹600/- crores committed in the Department in procuring food for Anganawadi Kendras under the ICDS Scheme and tenders were awarded to a blacklisted Company. After filing of the complaint, on the same day, the petitioner comes out of the Lokayukta office, held a press conference or answers questions of the media. The fact of filing the complaint and the contents of the complaint were reported by respondents 5 to 30 or defendants 2 to 27 who are all news and media Companies. Online request news clippings were circulated by the news and media outlets. Four days thereafter, plaintiffs 1 to 4 institute the suit in O.S.No.7586 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing anything defamatory concerning supply of food under the ICDS scheme. The alleged defamatory content found in the plaint is as follows: “…. …. …. (B) Defamatory content against the Plaintiffs 14 19) On 17th November 2023, the 1st Defendant held a press conference in front of the Lokayukta office, Bengaluru. At the press conference, the 1st Defendant falsely alleged that the Plaintiffs were involved in a 600 crore scam as they had allegedly awarded tenders for supplying food to Anganwadis to ineligible entities. The transcript and the CD of the false and defamatory statements made by the Plaintiff are produced as Document No.1 & 2 of the plaint. These false and defamatory accusations made by the 1st Defendant before the Lokayukta office are being broadcasted and publicized by the other Defendants from 17th November 2023. All these false and defamatory statements have caused irreparable reputational injury and losses to the Plaintiffs. 20) In view of the above, the present suit has been filed seeking judgment and decree restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants or any person claiming through or under them either jointly or severally from telecasting or publishing any discussion, news item or any other television programme whatsoever which defames or is calculated to defame the Plaintiffs or persons connected with the Plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever. Further, the Plaintiff is also seeking mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to publish an unconditional apology for the false and defamatory statements made on 17th November 2023 and published against the Plaintiffs in relation to the implementation of the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (‘ICDS Scheme’) to provide nutritious, food to children. Additionally, the Plaintiffs are also seeking mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to take down all the defamatory content aired/ published against the Plaintiffs in relation to supply of food to the Anganwadi Centres under the ICDS Scheme.” The reminder of the plaint justifies ICDS scheme. The effect of the statement made by the petitioner that is projected is follows: “…. …. …. 15 35) These allegations have lowered the reputation of the Plaintiffs in the eyes of the general public. Several persons known to the Plaintiffs enquired about the veracity of the false allegations made by the Defendants. This caused severe trauma and mental duress to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs who have been appreciated by the members of the public are now looked down upon by the same people as a result of the false and defamatory statements made by the Defendants. 36) The Plaintiffs submit that after viewing the programme, the members of the public have started speaking ill of the Plaintiffs. The publication has caused prejudice in the minds of people despite the fact that the contents of the publication being completely false. This prejudice is based on the false, baseless and derogatory statements made by the Defendants. The Defendants are aware that the Plaintiffs do not have access to the same media coverage to bring out the truth before the members of the general public. 37) The Plaintiffs also want to point out that, prior to making/publishing such false and scandalous allegations, no efforts were made to ascertain the facts from the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs submit that owing to such publication that is now made, the Defendants have created a wrong public opinion and have placed further roadblocks in implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Defendants are deliberately peddling falsehood against the Plaintiffs and targeting them in their personal capacity in order to impede the implementation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.3522 of 2022.” The cause of action stated is as follows: “…. …. …. 39) Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose on 17/11/2023, on 18/11/2023 when various defamatory statements were published by the Defendants against the 16 Plaintiffs. It is submitted that the effect of the defamatory statements made continue even as on this date.” The prayer sought is as follows: “a. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, anchors, news readers, correspondents, employees, servants or any person claiming through or under them, subsidiaries, parent company or any related entities, either jointly or severally from transmitting, broad casting, publishing, distributing, sharing or webhosting in any print, electronic or other medium any statement or other content whatsoever which defames or is calculated to defame the Plaintiffs in relation to supply of food under the ICDS Scheme pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 3522 of 2022; b. Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to publish an unconditional apology for the defamatory statements made and to unconditionally withdraw all such defamatory statements; c. Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to take down all defamatory statements transmitted, broadcasted, published, distributed, shared, web-hosted. in any print, electronic or other medium made against the Plaintiffs in relation to supply of food under the ICDS Scheme;” Permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendants from transmitting and broadcasting any material concerning ICDS scheme and mandatory injunction is sought to direct the defendants to take down all defamatory statements transmitted, broadcasted and published. 17 9. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner files an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the score that it runs counter to Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and the citizens of the State are entitled to know what is happening in the Government. The affidavit in support of the application reads as follows: “AFFIDAVIT I, S.Nataraj Sharma, s/o Suryanarayana Rao H.Ν., aged about 47 years, Advocate having office at No.7, 1st floor, Bheru Mansion, Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru- 560004 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I submit that I am the first defendant in the above case and as such I am aware of the facts of the case. 2. I submit that the plaint prayers are for an injunction to restrain me from making any statement regarding supply of food under ICDS Scheme and for mandatory injunctions for my apology and to take back statements made by me before the media regarding supply of food under ICDS Scheme. 3. I submit that the prayers are vague and general and do not show any cause of action. The prayers cannot be granted by law. My future speech is also sought to be restrained by injunction. 4. I submit that I made a complaint before the Lokayukta and I spoke about the complaint to the media. The complaint copy is produced along with my written statement. I submit that it is my right and responsibility as an Advocate and public- spirited citizen to file a complaint if I come to know about high level corruption in this case about 600 Crores of Rupees. It is the duty of the media to inform the public regarding filing of such a complaint. 18 5. I submit that filing of a complaint and speaking about it is not defamation. The lokayukta probe will decide whether the allegations are true or false. If the allegations are false the plaintiffs can file a suit against me for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution and they may also take recourse to sections 182 and 211 of the IPC, 1860. 6. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file a suit against media houses and myself. since only the complaint allegations are being reported. Since there is no defamation there cannot be an injunction against defamation. The allegations have to be probed by the lokayukta. Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to reject the plaint by allowing the accompanying application in the interests of justice and equity.” The concerned Court, by the impugned order, rejects the application on the following reasons: “…. …. …. REASONS 7. Point No.1 :- It is well settled law that at the time of rejection of the plaint, only the plaint averments and the document filed with the plaint are to be considered. I have examined the plaint, documents filed with the plaint, the plaint allegations reveal that the plaintiffs are the minister of Women and Child Development, Government of Karnataka and the Secretary of Department of Women and Child Development in Government of Karnataka and plaintiff No.3 is also Director of the Women and Child Development in Government of Karnataka, plaintiff No.4 is working on special duty in the said department. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant being Advocate making false and baseless allegations against the plaintiffs and making statement before various electronic, print and digital media. The plaintiffs have produced document No.3 which is the article published in the portal of defendant No.2. 19 Several viewers have submitted their comments on the article. There are numbers of comments tarnishing the image of plaintiffs before the enquiry is conducted and concluded. 8. In other media houses websites, there are news articles circulating that 1st plaintiff faces the complaint for Anganawadi food irregularities. The video clippings also produced by the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant has not stated only about the complaint filed before the Lokayuktha, several other information regarding the plaintiffs also disclosed. If the media briefing is restricted only to the complaint lodged by 1st defendant against the plaintiffs before Lokayuktha, then it can be safely inferred that there is no cause of action for filing this suit. But, the C.D. produced along with the plaint reveals that there are other facts are also briefed by the 1st defendant to media houses. Therefore, there is a clear cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit before this court for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. 9. Learned counsel for the 1st defendant relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajanath Khosla V/s. Acharya Dr. John R. Biswas & others. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court discussed about the word 'defamation' and held that unless the competent authority took the cognizance and filing of the complaint before the competent authority does not amounts to defamation. 10. In the 2nd judgment relied by the 1st defendant, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in Mahadev I. Todale V/s Frankfinn Aviation Services private limited is also in respect of suit for defamation and damages. According to the 1st defendant, if the Lokayuktha concludes the enquiry and complaint holding that it is false, then only the cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file this suit. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.8528/2022. It is in respect of suit for damages. His contention is that the cause of action arose only after the investigation was completed and before the investigation is completed this suit is filed, therefore it is premature one. 11. In another decision also, freedom of speech and press emphasized. But, these decisions are not applicable because in media briefing the 1st defendant not only stating about the 20 complaint filed against the plaintiff. He made certain other allegations against the plaintiffs, without filing complaint regarding other allegations. Therefore, these decisions are not helpful for the 1st defendant. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon. ILR 2005(1) Delhi 34 in case of Ashok Ghosh V/s. Urmi A. Goswami. It is in respect of freedom of speech and expression. Wherein, Hon'ble Delhi Court held that there are certain restrictions under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India. The other decisions are also in respect of the defamation and freedom of speech, etc., The facts involved in this case demonstrates that the 1st defendant apart from stating about the complaint stated several other things against the 1st plaintiff and others. Therefore, the plaintiffs have rightly filed suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaint discloses the cause of action, therefore answer point No.1 in negative. 13. Point No.2:- In view of my answer to the above point, I pass the following:- ORDER I.A.No.7 filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC is dismissed.” 10. The issue now is, whether the plaint averments did disclose cause of action for instituting the plaint? 11. A perusal at the plaint would indicate that there is no averment with regard to specific statements made by the petitioner which are defamatory in nature. The plaint refers to a CD in which the video of a press conference held by the 1st defendant wherein it 21 is stated that the petitioner has stated certain additional defamatory contents apart from what is stated in the plaint. The additional allegations are not culled out in the plaint. The plaint averments are in entirety justify the scheme, with some vague statements of it being defamatory. All these factors ought to have been borne consideration by the concerned Court while answering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, though it is settled principle of law that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC need not be answered on the strength of the written statement or on the strength of the affidavit filed in support of the application, but purely on plaint averments. Even on plaint averments, as noted hereinabove, the plaint is absolutely vague. This factor is not borne consideration at the hands of the concerned Court. 12. Several factors that are projected before this Court on pleadings have not been noticed by the Court. In that light, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the concerned Court to consider the application on the strength of the pleading that is already in place, in accordance with law and pass necessary orders thereon. Plethora of judgments are relied on by both the learned 22 counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In the light of the matter being remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court, both the learned counsel would place the same before the concerned Court and it is needless to observe that the concerned Court will consider all the averments and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the following: O R D E R (i) Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order dated 13-12-2024 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.7586 of 2023 stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to answer the application afresh, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23 (iv) All contentions of both the parties except the one considered in the case at hand, shall remain open to be urged before the concerned Court. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP CT:MJ