V. Selladurai, S/O. Veerapan Vs. N. Nethaji, S/O. Natesan and Thanthi Trust, Prop. Daily Thanthi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/840332
SubjectMedia and Communication
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnSep-05-2006
Case NumberO.S.A. No. 146 of 2005
JudgeP.K. Misra and ;M. Jaichandren, JJ.
Reported in(2006)4MLJ680
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 16, 17, 19, 20 and 120
AppellantV. Selladurai, S/O. Veerapan
RespondentN. Nethaji, S/O. Natesan and Thanthi Trust, Prop. Daily Thanthi
Appellant AdvocateV. Selladurai, Party-in-person and ;R. Parthasarathy, Amicus curiae
Respondent AdvocateUsha Raman, Adv. for Respondent-1 and ;V. Sanjeevi, Adv. Respondent-2
Cases ReferredP.H. Parameswara Pattar v. Vivathan Mahadevi
Excerpt:
- commission of inquiry act, 1952.[c.a. no. 60/1952]. section 3: [p.k. misra, m. jaichandren & m.e.n. patrudu, jj] report of commission of inquiry binding nature and evidentiary value - held, it is not binding on the state nor its findings are binding on those against whom any recommendation is made. conclusions of commission of inquiry are also not admissible in court of law, in criminal case or even in civil case. such conclusions are merely advisory in nature. however, such report to extent it is accepted by state, the state would be bound by its findings. p.k. misra, j1. plaintiff is the appellant. he filed the suit claiming a sum of rs. 11,00,000/- from three defendants jointly and severally as damages on the allegation that a defamatory notice was published at the instance of defendant no. 1 in the newspaper 'daily thanthi' belonging to defendant no. 2 of which defendant no. 3 was the editor, printer and publisher.2. the allegation in the plaint is to the effect that defendant no. 1, who had offered to supervise the construction of a guest house for the plaintiff, who is an exporter of tamil feature films to sri lanka, had been given an imprest cash of rs. 3,78,000/- for purchase of materials. according to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 was liable to refund a sum of rs. 20,000/- and when the plaintiff broached the subject, defendant no. 1 abused and assaulted the plaintiff for which he had preferred a complaint with aranthangi police and a case has been registered as c.c. no. 1001 of 2001 before the special judicial magistrate, aranthangi against defendant no. 1. on 25.1.2002, defendant no. 1 out of spite and intention to injure the credit and reputation of the plaintiff, caused a publication in the tamil daily 'daily thanthi' containing false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. it has been further stated that publication of such notice caused mental pain and agony and had lowered reputation in the estimate of the public. thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice dated 4.2.2002 to defendant no. 1 demanding rs. 11,00,000/- as compensation, but there was no response. defendants 2 and 3 have printed and published irresponsibly the aforesaid publication without verifying the correctness and, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable and though the notice dated 4.2.2002 was sent to defendant no. 3, there was no response from defendant no. 3. it was further stated in the plaint that cause of action arose at chennai where the defendants 2 and 3 were carrying on business and where publication had been made on 25.1.2002.3. defendant no. 1 filed a written statement, wherein it was stated that he had married the niece of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had requested the first defendant to construct his house. the total construction cost came to rs. 4,79,000/-, whereas the plaintiff had given a sum of rs. 3,47,000/- and thus there was balance of rs. 1,32,000/- payable by the plaintiff. but the plaintiff had delayed and defaulted in paying the said amount. defendant no. 1 had handed over the key of the constructed house and at that time the plaintiff had promised to pay the balance sum of rs. 1,32,000/- within six months and yet the plaintiff had not done so and had not fulfilled his commitment. in such background, defendant no. 1 had given the newspaper publication dated 25.1.2002 in 'dhina thanthi', trichy edition, setting out all the facts. in the said publication it is stated that there was pending dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 regarding construction of the house and the publication put the prospective buyers on notice that the purchaser would have to make good the loss to defendant no. 1 and no imputation was made against the plaintiff and the publication does not even remotely imply that the plaintiff was an accused in any criminal case and it was only a bonafide assertion of the claim of defendant no. 1 in good faith. it was further indicated that publication was given only in trichy edition and there was no circulation whatsoever in chennai, and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.4. a separate written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, which is the proprietor of the newspaper 'daily thanthi'. in the written statement it was admitted that the office of the newspaper at trichy had received from one mr. viswanathan, advocate and notary public, the notice for publication under the heading 'public notice' which was published in trichy edition of dina thanthi on 25.1.2002. the matter published did not contain any defamatory or false allegation and it only contains a reference to pendency of the proceedings on the file of the special judicial magistrate, aranthangi and did not refer the plaintiff as an accused and the plaintiff was trying to sell away the property to cheat defendant no. 1. it was further stated that notice was published only in trichy edition and no part of the cause of action had arisen within the original side jurisdiction of the high court and the plaintiff had not obtained any leave to sue.5. on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned single judge framed the following issues:(i) whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit ?(ii) whether there is loss of reputation or standing in society caused to the plaintiff ? (iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages to a sum of rs. 11 lakhs with interest at 18% per annum against the defendants jointly and severally ?6. while considering issue no. 1 relating to territorial jurisdiction, the learned single judge found that publication had been made at trichy only and defendant no. 1 was residing at aranthangi in pudukottai district and no part of the cause of action had arisen to invoke the jurisdiction of the high court in its original side and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. while discussing under issue nos. 2 and 3, the learned single judge observed that in such publication it was not mentioned that the plaintiff was an accused in c.c. no. 1001 of 2001 and it was not defamatory. learned single judge further observed that the plaintiff has not proved as to how his reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others and how his business had been affected and the plaintiff had not proved the actual damages said to have been suffered by him or loss of reputation. on the basis of the aforesaid conclusions, the learned single judge decided issue nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.7. the appellant has made his submissions in person. respondents 1 and 2 have appeared separately through their respective counsels and respondent no. 3 is admittedly dead.8. since the appellant had not engaged any advocate and since an important question of law relating to jurisdiction of the high court in its original side is involved, this court has requested mr. r. parthasarathy to assist the court as amicus curiae. the aforesaid amicus curiae has made his submission and has also submitted his written note. counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 has also submitted his written note.9. the first question is whether the high court in its original side has jurisdiction to deal with the case. for considering the question of jurisdiction, it is necessary to refer to clause 12 of the letters patent, 1865 and the relevant provisions contained in the code of civil procedure. section 120 of c.p.c specifically lays down that sections 16, 17 and 20 of c.p.c. shall not apply to the high court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. section 19 of c.p.c relates to suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables and is to the following effect:19. suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.- where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts. clause 12 of the letters patent, 1865 is extracted hereunder:12. original jurisdiction as to suits - and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said high court: or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said high court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the small cause at madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees. 10. it is convenient to analyse the provisions contained in clause 12 of the letters patent first. such clause empowers the madras high court to decide the suits for land or other immovable property if such land or property is situated within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the high court. secondly, it empowers the court to deal with a dispute where cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the high court. thirdly, it empowers the high court to deal with the matter where cause of action has arisen in part within the jurisdiction of the high court, provided before institution of such suit leave of the high court has been obtained. fourthly it also empowers the high court to deal with the dispute '...if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits'. 11. section 19 of c.p.c specifically refers to suits for compensation for wrong done to the person. a bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the plaintiff has option to sue a wrong doer at the place within whose local limits the wrong was done or in the court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. illustration (b) to such section 19 makes this position very clear. however, where there are more defendants than one and some of such defendants stay within the jurisdiction of the court and other stay beyond such jurisdiction, section 19 may not be applicable. on the other hand, section 20(b) may be applicable. while interpreting the provisions contained in clause 12 of the letters patent, similar interpretations should be given. in other words, the expression 'defendant' should be interpreted to mean all the defendants and not any one of the defendants. if there is sole defendant, who resides within the territorial jurisdiction, such suit can be filed. similarly, if all the defendants reside within the territorial jurisdiction, such suit can be filed. however, where out of the defendants some reside beyond the jurisdiction and some reside within the jurisdiction, suit can be filed only if cause of action arises in part within the local limits of ordinary original jurisdiction of the high court. however, before filing such suit, the plaintiff is required to obtain leave of the court.12. a similar question was raised before this court in a decision reported in 1992 1 l.w. 277 (k. murugesan v. seethalakshmi), wherein it was observed:6. ... if there is one defendant in a suit and he resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, the suit would be maintainable and if there are more than one defendant in the suit and all of them are founded residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, the suit would still be maintainable but in a case where there are more than one defendant in the suit, but only one or some of them are found residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court and another or some of them are not found residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, is the suit maintainable or not and whether in such a case the leave would be granted or not and if granted it could be revoked for the defect of jurisdiction or not? srinivasan, j. has referred to a bench judgment of this court reported in p.h. paameswara pattar v. vivatha mahadevi 1922 m.w.n. 641in which a broad reference has been made to what may be found in the four corners of clause 12 of the letters patent of this court.the division bench thereafter referred to the decision of calcutta high court reported in : air1960cal123 (bengal a.s.y. corporation v. corporation of calcutta), where it was observed that maintainability of such suit would depend upon the nature of cause of action, whether it was joint cause of action against all the defendants or whether it was joint and several. such observations were approved by the division bench which of course ultimately sustained the jurisdiction on the ground that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction.13. in a subsequent decision reported in 1992 1 l.w.441 (m. venkataswamy v. mardapushpam and 4 ors.), the division bench observed:12. clause 12 of the letters patent which applies to this court on its original side inter alia states that if the 'defendant' at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally works for gain within such limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this court, the said could be laid in this court on its original side. the term 'defendant' used in the above said clause 12 also has been held to mean all the defendants, where the suit is against more than one defendant. (vide hadjee ismail v. hadjee mohammed 1874 13 b.l.r. 91 and the view of one of the judges of the division bench in p.h. parameswara pattar v. vivathan mahadevi 1922 m.w.n. 841 ....14. from a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two division bench decisions, it is apparent that the court will have jurisdiction, if the sole defendant or all the defendants reside within the jurisdiction, and where some of the defendants reside, the question would depend upon the cause of action. 15. in the present case, it can be said that cause of action had arisen at least in part within the jurisdiction of the madras high court inasmuch as the publication has been made in a newspaper whose head quarters is coming within the jurisdiction of the madras high court. it is not disputed at the bar that leave had been obtained by the plaintiff for filing the suit in the original side of the madras high court and the defendants never made any effort to revoke such leave. therefore, the conclusion of the learned single jude that this court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter cannot be sustained.16. learned single judge has come to the conclusion that there is nothing defamatory in the notice. the relevant portion of the english translation of the public notice is extracted hereunder:this notice is being published under instructions from my client mr. netaji son of natesan of silattur village, aranthangi taluk, pudukottai district.it is hereby informed by this notice to one and all that the said netaji had constructed a new terraced house in the lands measuring 0.02.5 ares comprised in royat survey no. 67/5 of silattur village, belonging to chelladurai, son of veerappa devar as instructed by the said chelladurai and that the said house building has been assessed to tax as door no. 3/9 and that in pursuance of the said construction a sum of rs. 1,32,000/- (one lakh and thirty two thousand only) is due and payable by the said chelladurai to the said netaji and that in relation to the dispute arose between them, a case had been filed through aranthangi police station bearing no. 1001/2001, which is pending on the file of the special judicial magistrate at aranthangi and that now the said chelladurai is attempting to sell the said newly constructed house and that since balance of payments are due to the said netaji, no one should purchase the same and that if any one purchases the said house, the purchaser of the house will have to pay the said dues in a sum of rs. 1,32,000/- in accordance with law.17. it is of course true that in the said notice it has not been specifically stated that the plaintiff was the accused. however, a reading of the aforesaid notice gives the obvious impression that the criminal case has been filed by nethaji (defendant no. 1) in connection with payment of rs. 1,32,000/-, which is due to be paid to such nethaji by the plaintiff. the aforesaid allegation is far from the truth inasmuch as the case had been filed by the present plaintiff against nethaji, whereunder the plaintiff was claiming a sum of rs. 20,000/- towards refund of excess money from the defendant no. 1. it is obvious that defendant no. 1 has twisted the allegations made in the fir, which was in fact filed against defendant no. 1 himself, giving a colour as if such fir had been filed in connection with the claim of rs. 1,32,000/- from the plaintiff. since the notice gives the wrong impression that criminal case has been initiated on account of non-payment of alleged due of rs. 1,32,000/- by the plaintiff, whereas the fir in fact was based on the allegation that a sum of rs. 20,000/- was to be refunded by defendant no. 1, we are of the considered opinion that such allegation in the notice was defamatory.18. the statement published is also false in the sense that fir was not based on the alleged due to defendant no. 1 from the plaintiff, but based on the alleged due of the plaintiff from defendant no. 1. it is thus obvious that defendant no. 1 is liable as the defamatory statement has been published at his instance.19. it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 2 that even assuming that notice was defamatory, the newspaper, which merely published the notice on the basis of the expressed statement received from the party, should not be held liable unless there is material to show that the notice published was perse defamatory in which case it would have been the duty of the newspaper to cross-check the contents of the notice before publishing the same.20. it is not necessary for us to go into this question as it appears that in course of hearing before the trial court the plaintiff has stated that he had no grievance as against defendant no. 2. it is to be noticed that defendant no. 3 had died and there has been no substitution and as such the suit does not survive against defendant no. 3.21. in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that defendant no. 1 is liable for the publication of the defamatory notice.22. the next question is relating to the extent of compensation. the plaintiff has not examined any person either from madras or sri lanka relating to the damages caused. the plaintiff has not proved that he being a producer and distributor of pictures and since many of his pictures being distributed in sri lanka, his name has been defamed in sri lanka, thereby ruining his entire business. unfortunately, the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence whatsoever on such aspect. therefore, there is hardly any material to assess the damages payable. since a defamatory statement had been published, compensation can be calculated notionally in the absence of any material to soothe ruffled nerves of the plaintiff as no image had been sullied.23. we feel, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, payment of rs. 10,000/- as compensation can be said to be just and proper. accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and defendant no. 1 is directed to pay compensation of rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with proportionate costs of the trial court as well as the appellate court. defendant no. 2 is, however, exonerated. we place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by mr. r. parthasarathy, amicus curiae.
Judgment:

P.K. Misra, J

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- from three defendants jointly and severally as damages on the allegation that a defamatory notice was published at the instance of Defendant No. 1 in the newspaper 'Daily Thanthi' belonging to Defendant No. 2 of which Defendant No. 3 was the Editor, Printer and Publisher.

2. The allegation in the plaint is to the effect that Defendant No. 1, who had offered to supervise the construction of a Guest House for the plaintiff, who is an exporter of Tamil feature films to Sri Lanka, had been given an imprest cash of Rs. 3,78,000/- for purchase of materials. According to the plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 was liable to refund a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and when the plaintiff broached the subject, Defendant No. 1 abused and assaulted the plaintiff for which he had preferred a complaint with Aranthangi Police and a case has been registered as C.C. No. 1001 of 2001 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi against Defendant No. 1. On 25.1.2002, Defendant No. 1 out of spite and intention to injure the credit and reputation of the plaintiff, caused a publication in the Tamil daily 'Daily Thanthi' containing false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. It has been further stated that publication of such notice caused mental pain and agony and had lowered reputation in the estimate of the public. Thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice dated 4.2.2002 to Defendant No. 1 demanding Rs. 11,00,000/- as compensation, but there was no response. Defendants 2 and 3 have printed and published irresponsibly the aforesaid publication without verifying the correctness and, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable and though the notice dated 4.2.2002 was sent to Defendant No. 3, there was no response from Defendant No. 3. It was further stated in the plaint that cause of action arose at Chennai where the Defendants 2 and 3 were carrying on business and where publication had been made on 25.1.2002.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement, wherein it was stated that he had married the niece of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had requested the first defendant to construct his house. The total construction cost came to Rs. 4,79,000/-, whereas the plaintiff had given a sum of Rs. 3,47,000/- and thus there was balance of Rs. 1,32,000/- payable by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff had delayed and defaulted in paying the said amount. Defendant No. 1 had handed over the key of the constructed house and at that time the plaintiff had promised to pay the balance sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- within six months and yet the plaintiff had not done so and had not fulfilled his commitment. In such background, Defendant No. 1 had given the newspaper publication dated 25.1.2002 in 'Dhina Thanthi', Trichy Edition, setting out all the facts. In the said publication it is stated that there was pending dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 regarding construction of the house and the publication put the prospective buyers on notice that the purchaser would have to make good the loss to Defendant No. 1 and no imputation was made against the plaintiff and the publication does not even remotely imply that the plaintiff was an accused in any criminal case and it was only a bonafide assertion of the claim of Defendant No. 1 in good faith. It was further indicated that publication was given only in Trichy Edition and there was no circulation whatsoever in Chennai, and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

4. A separate written statement was filed on behalf of Defendant No. 2, which is the proprietor of the newspaper 'Daily Thanthi'. In the written statement it was admitted that the office of the newspaper at Trichy had received from one Mr. Viswanathan, Advocate and Notary Public, the notice for publication under the heading 'Public Notice' which was published in Trichy Edition of Dina Thanthi on 25.1.2002. The matter published did not contain any defamatory or false allegation and it only contains a reference to pendency of the proceedings on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi and did not refer the plaintiff as an accused and the plaintiff was trying to sell away the property to cheat Defendant No. 1. It was further stated that notice was published only in Trichy Edition and no part of the cause of action had arisen within the Original Side jurisdiction of the High Court and the plaintiff had not obtained any leave to sue.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned single Judge framed the following issues:

(i) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit ?

(ii) Whether there is loss of reputation or standing in society caused to the plaintiff ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages to a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs with interest at 18% per annum against the defendants jointly and severally ?

6. While considering issue No. 1 relating to territorial jurisdiction, the learned single Judge found that publication had been made at Trichy only and Defendant No. 1 was residing at Aranthangi in Pudukottai district and no part of the cause of action had arisen to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court in its Original Side and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. While discussing under issue Nos. 2 and 3, the learned single Judge observed that in such publication it was not mentioned that the plaintiff was an accused in C.C. No. 1001 of 2001 and it was not defamatory. Learned single Judge further observed that the plaintiff has not proved as to how his reputation had been lowered in the estimation of others and how his business had been affected and the plaintiff had not proved the actual damages said to have been suffered by him or loss of reputation. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions, the learned single Judge decided Issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

7. The appellant has made his submissions in person. Respondents 1 and 2 have appeared separately through their respective counsels and Respondent No. 3 is admittedly dead.

8. Since the appellant had not engaged any Advocate and since an important question of law relating to jurisdiction of the High Court in its Original Side is involved, this Court has requested Mr. R. Parthasarathy to assist the court as Amicus curiae. The aforesaid Amicus curiae has made his submission and has also submitted his written note. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 has also submitted his written note.

9. The first question is whether the High Court in its Original Side has jurisdiction to deal with the case. For considering the question of jurisdiction, it is necessary to refer to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and the relevant provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 120 of C.P.C specifically lays down that Sections 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Section 19 of C.P.C relates to suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables and is to the following effect:

19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.- Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is extracted hereunder:

12. Original jurisdiction as to suits - And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court: or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees.

10. It is convenient to analyse the provisions contained in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent first. Such clause empowers the Madras High Court to decide the suits for land or other immovable property if such land or property is situated within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court. Secondly, it empowers the court to deal with a dispute where cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Thirdly, it empowers the High Court to deal with the matter where cause of action has arisen in part within the jurisdiction of the High Court, provided before institution of such suit leave of the High Court has been obtained. Fourthly it also empowers the High Court to deal with the dispute '...if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits'.

11. Section 19 of C.P.C specifically refers to suits for compensation for wrong done to the person. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the plaintiff has option to sue a wrong doer at the place within whose local limits the wrong was done or in the court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Illustration (b) to such Section 19 makes this position very clear. However, where there are more defendants than one and some of such defendants stay within the jurisdiction of the Court and other stay beyond such jurisdiction, Section 19 may not be applicable. On the other hand, Section 20(b) may be applicable. While interpreting the provisions contained in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, similar interpretations should be given. In other words, the expression 'defendant' should be interpreted to mean all the defendants and not any one of the defendants. If there is sole defendant, who resides within the territorial jurisdiction, such suit can be filed. Similarly, if all the defendants reside within the territorial jurisdiction, such suit can be filed. However, where out of the defendants some reside beyond the jurisdiction and some reside within the jurisdiction, suit can be filed only if cause of action arises in part within the local limits of ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court. However, before filing such suit, the plaintiff is required to obtain leave of the court.

12. A similar question was raised before this Court in a decision reported in 1992 1 L.W. 277 (K. Murugesan v. Seethalakshmi), wherein it was observed:

6. ... If there is one defendant in a suit and he resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit would be maintainable and if there are more than one defendant in the suit and all of them are founded residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, the suit would still be maintainable but in a case where there are more than one defendant in the suit, but only one or some of them are found residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court and another or some of them are not found residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, is the suit maintainable or not and whether in such a case the leave would be granted or not and if granted it could be revoked for the defect of jurisdiction or not? Srinivasan, J. has referred to a Bench judgment of this Court reported in P.H. Paameswara Pattar v. Vivatha Mahadevi 1922 M.W.N. 641in which a broad reference has been made to what may be found in the four corners of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court.

The Division Bench thereafter referred to the decision of Calcutta High Court reported in : AIR1960Cal123 (Bengal A.S.Y. Corporation v. Corporation of Calcutta), where it was observed that maintainability of such suit would depend upon the nature of cause of action, whether it was joint cause of action against all the defendants or whether it was joint and several. Such observations were approved by the Division Bench which of course ultimately sustained the jurisdiction on the ground that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction.

13. In a subsequent decision reported in 1992 1 L.W.441 (M. Venkataswamy v. Mardapushpam and 4 Ors.), the Division Bench observed:

12. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which applies to this Court on its original side Inter Alia states that if the 'defendant' at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally works for gain within such limits of the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this Court, the said could be laid in this Court on its original side. The term 'defendant' used in the above said Clause 12 also has been held to mean all the defendants, where the suit is against more than one defendant. (Vide Hadjee Ismail v. Hadjee Mohammed 1874 13 B.L.R. 91 and the view of one of the Judges of the Division Bench in P.H. Parameswara Pattar v. Vivathan Mahadevi 1922 M.W.N. 841 ....

14. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Division Bench decisions, it is apparent that the Court will have jurisdiction, if the sole defendant or all the defendants reside within the jurisdiction, and where some of the defendants reside, the question would depend upon the cause of action.

15. In the present case, it can be said that cause of action had arisen at least in part within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court inasmuch as the publication has been made in a newspaper whose Head Quarters is coming within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. It is not disputed at the Bar that leave had been obtained by the plaintiff for filing the suit in the Original Side of the Madras High Court and the defendants never made any effort to revoke such leave. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned single Jude that this Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter cannot be sustained.

16. Learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that there is nothing defamatory in the notice. The relevant portion of the English translation of the Public Notice is extracted hereunder:

This notice is being published under instructions from my client Mr. Netaji son of Natesan of Silattur Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

It is hereby informed by this notice to one and all that the said Netaji had constructed a new terraced house in the lands measuring 0.02.5 Ares comprised in Royat Survey No. 67/5 of Silattur Village, belonging to Chelladurai, son of Veerappa Devar as instructed by the said Chelladurai and that the said house building has been assessed to tax as Door No. 3/9 and that in pursuance of the said construction a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- (One lakh and thirty two thousand only) is due and payable by the said Chelladurai to the said Netaji and that in relation to the dispute arose between them, a case had been filed through Aranthangi Police Station bearing No. 1001/2001, which is pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate at Aranthangi and that now the said Chelladurai is attempting to sell the said newly constructed house and that since balance of payments are due to the said Netaji, no one should purchase the same and that if any one purchases the said house, the purchaser of the house will have to pay the said dues in a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- in accordance with law.

17. It is of course true that in the said notice it has not been specifically stated that the plaintiff was the accused. However, a reading of the aforesaid notice gives the obvious impression that the criminal case has been filed by Nethaji (Defendant No. 1) in connection with payment of Rs. 1,32,000/-, which is due to be paid to such Nethaji by the plaintiff. The aforesaid allegation is far from the truth inasmuch as the case had been filed by the present plaintiff against Nethaji, whereunder the plaintiff was claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards refund of excess money from the Defendant No. 1. It is obvious that Defendant No. 1 has twisted the allegations made in the FIR, which was in fact filed against Defendant No. 1 himself, giving a colour as if such FIR had been filed in connection with the claim of Rs. 1,32,000/- from the plaintiff. Since the notice gives the wrong impression that criminal case has been initiated on account of non-payment of alleged due of Rs. 1,32,000/- by the plaintiff, whereas the FIR in fact was based on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was to be refunded by Defendant No. 1, we are of the considered opinion that such allegation in the notice was defamatory.

18. The statement published is also false in the sense that FIR was not based on the alleged due to Defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff, but based on the alleged due of the plaintiff from Defendant No. 1. It is thus obvious that Defendant No. 1 is liable as the defamatory statement has been published at his instance.

19. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 2 that even assuming that notice was defamatory, the newspaper, which merely published the notice on the basis of the expressed statement received from the party, should not be held liable unless there is material to show that the notice published was perse defamatory in which case it would have been the duty of the newspaper to cross-check the contents of the notice before publishing the same.

20. It is not necessary for us to go into this question as it appears that in course of hearing before the trial court the plaintiff has stated that he had no grievance as against Defendant No. 2. It is to be noticed that Defendant No. 3 had died and there has been no substitution and as such the suit does not survive against Defendant No. 3.

21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that Defendant No. 1 is liable for the publication of the defamatory notice.

22. The next question is relating to the extent of compensation. The plaintiff has not examined any person either from Madras or Sri Lanka relating to the damages caused. The plaintiff has not proved that he being a Producer and Distributor of pictures and since many of his pictures being distributed in Sri Lanka, his name has been defamed in Sri Lanka, thereby ruining his entire business. Unfortunately, the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence whatsoever on such aspect. Therefore, there is hardly any material to assess the damages payable. Since a defamatory statement had been published, compensation can be calculated notionally in the absence of any material to soothe ruffled nerves of the plaintiff as no image had been sullied.

23. We feel, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation can be said to be just and proper. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and Defendant No. 1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with proportionate costs of the trial court as well as the appellate court. Defendant No. 2 is, however, exonerated. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. R. Parthasarathy, Amicus curiae.