1 CGHC010138622026 2026:CGHC:30520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 94 of 2026 Mukesh Govindani S/o Anand Govindani, Aged About 40 Years R/o Anand Cutpiece Center, Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, Tehsil-Bhatapara District-Balodabazar, Bhatapara, (C.G.) --- Applicant versus Eklavya Academy School, Through Operator- Tanjeev Arora, S/o Late Omprakash Arora, Aged, Abount 53 Years, R/o Nehru Ward Bhatapara, Tehsil -Bhatapara, District-Balodabazar, Bhatapara, (C.G.) --- Respondent For applicant : Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Adv. (Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 17-7-2026 1. The present civil revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') by the applicant/defendant, assailing the order dated 06-01-2026 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/19/2024, whereby the application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected. 2 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/ plaintiff runs an educational institution namely Eklavya Academy School at Bhatapara, imparting education from Play Group to Class IX. It is alleged that the applicant/defendant circulated a defamatory message in a WhatsApp group of their community named 'Jai Ho', alleging that although the Government provides free textbooks to students, the plaintiff institution misappropriates those books, compels parents to purchase books at their own expense, and earns commission therefrom. Alleging that the said message was false, derogatory, and defamatory, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking a decree of mandatory injunction against the applicant/defendant. 3. Upon appearance, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC contending that the message was circulated in the larger public interest and with bona fide intentions, as the plaintiff institution had allegedly been compelling parents to purchase uniforms, stationery, and other articles from shops of its own choice. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed its reply opposing the said application and denied the averments made therein. 5. After considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, the learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated 06-01-2026, rejected the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the message circulated by the applicant constituted a fair comment made in the public interest. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has not produced 3 any material to demonstrate that it suffered any financial loss on account of the circulation of alleged message. It is also contended that a complaint had been lodged by the defendant before the District Education Officer against the plaintiff institution, pursuant to which a show-cause notice was issued to it, in which, reply of the plaintiff was not found satisfactory. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the allegations leveled against the plaintiff are wholly false, derogatory, and defamatory. The impugned message was circulated by the defendant in the WhatsApp group of the Sindhi community, namely 'Jai Ho', of which several members of the community are members. It is further submitted that paragraph 4 of the plaint specifically states that the defamatory message was circulated on 10-05-2023, thereby disclosing a clear cause of action for instituting the suit. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order warrants no interference and that the revision deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent/plaintiff is an educational institution. According to the plaint, the applicant/ defendant circulated a message in the WhatsApp group 'Jai Ho' alleging that although the Government provides free textbooks to students, the plaintiff institution misappropriates those books, compels parents to purchase books at their own expense, and earns commission therefrom. The plaint specifically avers that the said defamatory message was circulated on 10-05-2023 in the aforesaid WhatsApp 4 group, of which several members of the Sindhi community are members. Thus, the averments contained in the plaint clearly disclose that, according to the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 10-05-2023. Whether the impugned message has caused any legal injury or damage to the plaintiff is a matter to be adjudicated upon after the parties lead evidence during trial. However, at this stage, the plaint, on its face, clearly discloses a cause of action. Consequently, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the present civil revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.22 10:44:46 +0530