-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHABMER SUMMONS NO. 1723 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 378 OF 2008. Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir & Ors. ..Plaintiffs. Versus Dadaji Dagdu Bhuse & Ors. ..Defendants. Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the plaintiffs. Mr. Vinayak Shetye i/b Poorvi Kamani for defendant no. 9. Ms. Savita Sadananda i/b M/s. Manisha Salekar i/b Mr. N. R. Bubna for defendant no.1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : February 8, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Vinayak Shetye, learned counsel for the defendant no.9 and Mr. R. A. Thorat, learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 2. The defendant no.9 has taken out the present chamber summons for rejection of plaint under Order-VII Rule-11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the alternative the defendant no. 9 has prayed for striking off pleadings as against him under the provisions of Order-VI Rule16 of the CPC, and again in the alternative the defendant no.9 has prayed for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiffs under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. 3. Mr. Shetye submitted that suit is filed for compensation for damages caused to the plaintiffs due to defamatory statements orally made by the -: 2 :- defendant no.1 and published by the defendant nos. 2 to 13. He further submitted that the present chamber summons is concerned with the defendant no.9 only and the publication made by the defendant no.9 is being relied upon, which is annexed at Exhibit- “H” to the plaint. He submitted that since this publication is dated 15th June 2005, suit filed on 31st January 2008 is not within limitation in view of provisions of Article 75 of the Limitation Act. 4. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the contrary submitted that even for the sake of arguments if it is presumed that the prayer clause (a) seeking compensation towards damages is barred by limitation, the prayer clauses (b) & (c) will survive and as such the plaint cannot be rejected in part. 5. Mr. Shetye, learned counsel for the defendant no.9 in reply relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of (i) Haredesh Ores (P) Ltd v/s. Hede and Company [(2007) 5 SCC 614], (ii) R. Rajgopal v/s. State of T.N. & Ors [(1994) 6 SCC 632] and (iii) T. Arvindandam v/s. T. V. Satyapal & Anr [AIR-1997 SC 2421] and submitted that the plaint must be read as a whole, and if on meaningful reading if it is found that it does not disclose any clear right to sue, then the plaint deserves to be rejected. He also submitted that relief claimed in prayer clause (b) also cannot be granted in view of provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. -: 3 :- 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I find no merit in the chamber summons. The prayer clause (a) of the suit is about compensation of Rs.10 crores towards damages caused to the plaintiffs due to defamatory publications by the defendants. Prayer clause (b) is about perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from publishing the defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs and prayer clause (c) is about mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to retract the allegations made by them as reflected in the clippings of newspapers. 7. Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the suit for compensation for libel and limitation prescribed is one year. So far as the defendant no.9 is concerned, the allegation is that he published the defamatory article in newspaper “Loksatta” on 15th June 2005. In these circumstances, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant no.9 that prayer clause (a) of the suit as against the defendant no.9 is bared by the law of limitation. 8. The Apex Court, however, in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors v/s. Assistant Charity Commissioner& Ors [(2004) 3 SCC 137] has held that under the provisions of Order-VII Rule-11 the suit cannot be rejected in part. The Apex Court earlier also in D.Ramchandran v/s. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors [AIR-1999 SC 1128] while considering the provisions of Order-VII Rule-11 of CPC observed that the Court cannot dissect pleadings into several part and strike out portion which does not disclose cause of action. -: 4 :- In the light of above decisions of the Apex Court and submission of Mr. Thorat, now let us consider the question whether prayer clauses (b) & (c) will survive. 9. Mr. Shetye in this regard relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in R. Rajgopal (supra), particularly the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph no.29. The Apex Court in this decision in paragraph no. 26 summarised the broad principle regarding the right of privacy vis-a-vis freedom or press. One of the principles laid down by the Apex Court is that there is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media. In the submission of Mr. Shetye in view of this decision of the Supreme Court, prayer clause (b) in the suit cannot be granted. The submission is devoid of merit. The question whether the prayer clause (b) in the light of the above decision of the Apex Court can be granted or not, will be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The present chamber summons is taken out for rejection of the plaint under Order-VII Rule-11(d) of CPC and while considering the said prayer, the Court is not called upon to consider the question whether a particular relief can be granted or not at the time of final hearing of the suit. The Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint must be satisfied that the reliefs claimed are barred by any law. 10. In Hardesh Ore (supra) and T. Arivandandam (supra) the Apex Court -: 5 :- held that while considering the application under Order-VII Rule-11 of CPC the plaint must be read as a whole in its entirety, and upon meaningful reading if it does not disclose that there is a clear right to sue, then powers under Order-VII Rule-11 of CPC are to be exercised. There is no dispute about the propositions laid down in these judgments. I have gone through the averments made in the plaint as well as contents of prayer clauses (b) & (c) of the plaint. In my view, prima facie though prayer (a) is barred by the law of limitation, prayer clauses (b) & (c) cannot said to be barred by any law, and therefore in respect of prayer clauses (b) & (c) the Court cannot exercise the powers under Order-VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Since the Apex Court held that the plaint cannot be rejected in part, the chamber summons deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)