Communication of Defamatory Material, Not Mere Publication, Determines Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Dismissed Suit Against Danik Jagran

In a significant judgment on the scope of territorial jurisdiction in defamation cases, the Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Shahdara District, in the case of M/S GAV Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Publishers Dainik Jagran & Ors.

The case (FAO 326/2017) revolved around an appeal by M/S GAV Developers Pvt. Ltd. Against the return of its plaint in a defamation suit. The appellant, a real estate developer, had filed the suit against the publishers of Dainik Jagran and certain residents of Dehradun, alleging defamation through publication in the newspaper.

The crux of the case was whether the Delhi court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The High Court, affirming the decision of the trial court, held that the court in Dehradun has the territorial jurisdiction, given that the alleged defamatory publication was in the Dehradun edition of Dainik Jagran, with no evidence of its circulation or e-circulation in Delhi.

In her judgment, Justice Kaur emphasized, “It is not the publication itself but the communication of the alleged libelous material that is relevant for determining jurisdiction in defamation cases.” This observation underlines the legal principle that for invoking jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure in defamation cases, the communication of the libelous material to at least one person other than the plaintiff or defendant is crucial.

The court also delved into the principles under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, stating that for objections to jurisdiction, the plaint’s averments must be taken as true, and the written statement is not to be considered at this stage. The judgment reiterated that in defamation cases, the ‘wrong’ under Section 19 of the CPC is done by the communication of the defamatory material, not just by its printing.

The High Court, In its judgment, referred to several precedents, including the RSPL Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Sharma & Ors., Exphar SA and Another v. Eupharma Laboratories Limited and Another, and M/s Frankfinn Management Consultants vs. Mr. Subhash Motwani & Ors., to reinforce its findings and conclusions.

Representatives for the appellant were Mr. Piyush Kaushik and Ms. Aparajita Jha, while Mr. J.K. Bhola, Ms. Kimmi Barara, and Mr. Mohit Mittal appeared for respondents No. 2 to No. 5.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi court in this matter. This judgment marks a significant point of reference in the legal discourse on jurisdiction in defamation cases, particularly in the context of publications with wide and varied circulation.

Date of Decision: 05.02.2024

M/S GAV DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS THE PUBLISHERS DAINIK JAGRAN & ORS .