1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.784 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.600 OF 2008 Prashant K. Mehta ..Plaintiff. Vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. and others ..Defendants. .... Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.P. Sen with Mr. Shone Sapeco i/b Hariani & Co. for the Plaintiff. Ms. Saumya Srikrishna with Mr. Sunil Raghani i/b PDS Legal for Defendants 1 to 4 and newly added Defendant. Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.V. Doijode and Ms. F.J. Thakker i/b Doijode & Associates for Defendant No.5. Mr. Satish Maneshinde with Mr. S.V. Doijode and Ms. F.J. Thakker i/b Doijode & Associates for Defendant No.6. Ms. S. Surve i/b Little & Co. for Defendant No.7. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 29th February, 2008. P.C. : Ms. Saumya Srikrishna, appears before the Court on behalf of the First Defendant and states that the programme which forms the subject matter of the suit was broadcast, on Zee News of which it is not the First Defendant but a company by the name of Zee News Limited is the owner. In view of the aforesaid statement, Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff seeks permission of the Court to 2 substitute the name of Zee News Limited instead and in place of the First Defendant. The application for amendment is allowed. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today. 2. Counsel appearing for the newly added First Defendant (Zee News Limited) states that the programme was broadcast on 28th November, 2007 and that there is no intention to rebroadcast the programme or the contents thereof. Statement in the aforesaid terms is accepted. Counsel appearing for the First Defendant states that this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the First Defendant to raise all appropriate defences at the trial of the suit including the defence that the programme was not defamatory. In view thereof, Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff states that the object of prayer clause (a)(i) of the Notice of Motion is fulfilled. 3. Insofar as prayer clause (a)(ii) is concerned, the relief that has been sought is in the nature of an attachment before judgment. An order of attachment has been sought under Order 38 Rule 5 on the basis of an averment in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support that Defendants 5 to 7 have contacted several 3 persons and brokers in the locality with a view to create third party rights in their residential premises. This allegation is vague and bereft of any material particulars. No case for attachment before judgment has been made out. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff therefore fairly states that prayer clause (a)(ii) of the Motion is not pressed at this stage. The Motion is accordingly disposed of. *****