Delhi High Court Upholds Plaintiff's Right to Trial in Defamation Suit

Court refuses to reject plaint solely based on locus standi; stays denied under Section 10 CPC

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has dismissed appeals filed by ABP Pvt. Ltd., challenging two interlocutory orders concerning a defamation suit initiated by ITC Hotels Ltd. and its affiliates. The court clarified that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be based solely on the plaintiff's locus standi, emphasizing the necessity of trial to address such issues.

The dispute originates from an article titled "smoke gets in his eyes," published on April 10, 2004, in the Telegraph, which purportedly defamed ITC's then-chairman, Yogesh Chander Deveshwar. While a related suit is pending before the Calcutta High Court, ITC Hotels Ltd. and its affiliates filed a separate suit in Delhi seeking damages and an injunction.

ABP Pvt. Ltd. sought the rejection of the Delhi suit's plaint, arguing that the respondents lacked a cause of action and questioned the absence of Deveshwar as a party to the suit. The appellant further requested a stay of proceedings under Section 10 CPC, citing the pending Calcutta suit.

The court firmly held that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is limited to explicit grounds, such as non-disclosure of a cause of action. It distinguished between the non-disclosure of a cause of action and the existence of a cause of action, stating that these issues, particularly locus standi, require a full trial and opportunity for plaintiffs to present evidence.

The bench also addressed the application for a stay under Section 10 CPC, noting that the subsequent Delhi suit involves distinct claims for damages not encompassed by the Calcutta suit, thereby disallowing a stay. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs in both suits are not identical, thus the issues are not directly and substantially the same.

The judgment reinforces the principle that questions of locus standi and suit maintainability should be determined at trial, allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to substantiate their claims. The decision also highlights the court's stance on protecting the right to a fair trial, ensuring that procedural mechanisms are not used to prematurely dismiss legitimate claims.

Bottom Line:

The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be based solely on the plaintiff's locus standi. Issues of locus standi and maintainability require trial and cannot be determined at the preliminary stage.

Statutory provision(s): Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Section 10 CPC

ABP Pvt. Ltd. v. ITC Hotels Ltd., (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2809382