Babul Supriya Baral vs Abhishek Banerjee

This appeal is directed against an order dated 24th July, 2018 passed by the learned 3rd Bench, learned City Civil Court at Calcutta in T.S. No.1579 of 2017 in respect of a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the learned Single Judge has passed an order of temporary injunction directing the defendant, his men, agents, etc. not to make, circulate, publish any derogatory or defamatory statement against the plaintiff till disposal of the suit.

This omnibus order, which virtually disposes of the suit, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. At the admission stage, we express our opinion that the direction at the interlocutory stage with regard to the defendant to retract his defamatory statements made on 30th November, 2017 in the relevant press conference at Asansol against the plaintiffs by sending a letter or otherwise to the plaintiff within fortnight from this order subject to the conditions that:

a) such retraction letter/document shall not be used as evidence against the defendant in the trial of the suit;

b) such letter/document shall not be published in any newspaper or in any form of media, without previous permission of this Court;

c) such retraction letter/document may be considered by the Court at the time of final adjudication of this suit, in mitigating the amount of damages, if any. could not have been passed at the interlocutory stage as it finally determines the issues between the parties. The purpose of an interim order is to preserve the rights of the parties. In a case of defamation or injurious falsehood, it is the duty of the Court on being satisfied to preserve the reputation of the party affected till the disposal of the suit. The Court only forms a prima facie opinion with regard to the statement being defamatory and does not conclusively decide the issue. The directions with regard to the retraction of the statement by sending letters and other consequential directions are in the nature of apology which presupposes admission of guilt, which can only be finally decided at the trial of the suit. The Court can only form a prima facie view and opinion that the statements forming the subject matter of the suit may be defamatory per se and may protect the right of the person so that he may not be maligned in future.

The said order cannot have an omnibus effect beyond the scope of the suit. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 24th July, 2018 in so far as it directs the defendant to retract his defamatory statements made on 30th November, 2017 in the relevant press conference at Asansol against the plaintiffs by sending a letter or otherwise to the plaintiff within fortnight from this order subject to the conditions that:

d) such retraction letter/document shall not be used as evidence against the defendant in the trial of the suit;

e) such letter/document shall not be published in any newspaper or in any form of media, without previous permission of this Court;

f) such retraction letter/document may be considered by the Court at the time of final adjudication of this suit, in mitigating the amount of damages, if any. is set aside.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

The appeal being FMA 685 of 2019 is disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.