1 Chs479-10 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.479 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.2954 OF 2009 Arun Kumar Khetan .. Plaintiff Vs. Daily News & Analysis and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Amit Vyas, Mr.Varun Mamniya i/b M/s.Rajani Associates for the plaintiff Mr.Jay Bhatia i/b M/s.Markand S. Narvekar for the defendant nos.7 and 8 CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : December 10, 2010 P.C. : 1. This Chamber Summons is filed by defendant nos.7 and 8 seeking to invoke this courts power under Order VII Rule XI (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as against defendant nos.7 and 8. It is submitted that defendant nos.7 and 8 are the erstwhile 2 Chs479-10 employers of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has resigned from the services of defendant no.7. 2. When the defamatory article appeared in the Newspaper (defendant no.1) immediately thereafter a clarification was issued by defendant no.8 that the contents thereof are not correct and, therefore, plaintiff has no cause of action as against defendant nos.7 and 8 of defamation and that will survive only against defendant no.1 to 6. Therefore, a decree for damages can be sought only against them. 3. It is not possible to accept this contention because plaint must be read as a whole. If the plaint is read as a whole it is stated by the plaintiff that the defamatory article appeared at the instance of the defendant nos.7 and 8. This stand has been reiterated in the plaint and it is stated that the clarification issued on 11.4.09 via email by defendant no8 does not close the issue. As on 18.05.09 defendant no.5, who is a reporter in defendant no.1 newspaper informed the plaintiff that the article was carried at the instance of defendant nos.7 and 8. 3 Chs479-10 4. In such circumstances, if the plaintiff states that he is not satisfied with any subsequent explanation of the defendant no.s7 and 8 and they are also entitled to compensate him for the acts of defamation, then I do not see show this plaint can be rejected at the instance of defendant nos.7 and 8. 5. There is a definite cause of action pleaded as against them and now a written statement, so also compilation of documents are placed on record by defendant no.7 and 8. For all these reasons, Chamber Summons is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )