1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.70 OF 2006 (PRAKASH GOPALRAO POHARE & OTH. Vs DILIP KUMAR G. SANANDA) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 30, 2008. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.381 of 2006 restraining the appellant, a publisher of the newspaper “Deshonnati”, “from publishing any libel or defamatory articles in their daily newspaper concerning reputation tending to lower down plaintiff's image in the society, till final decision of the suit”. 2. I have heard Shri V.M.Deshpande along with Shri A.B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants/original defendants and Shri Sunil Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent/ original plaintiff. 2 3. No publisher of newspaper can claim that he would go on publishing libel or defamatory articles in his newspaper. A publication would amount to libel or defamation if it is not true. So long as it is truthful report of an incident it would not attract action in civil or criminal Court for defamation. Therefore, injunction not to publish any libel or defamatory article is unlikely to hurt the appellant if the appellant sticks to the truth. The learned counsel for the appellants states that his clients have no intention to publish anything but the truth, not only in respect of the respondent, but in respect of any other person. The learned counsel for the appellant also states that his client's newspaper has been maintaining high journalistic standards and would continue to maintain the same. 4. If that be so, it is unlikely that the respondent/ plaintiff could have any grievance. The respondent/ plaintiff would not be entitled to claim that any truthful report about his activities should not be published. Even it defames him if it could be published. 3 5. In view of this clarification, nothing further is required to be added to the impugned order. The order does not call for interference. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE RR.