IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2019 (CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. VINAY NOAH SON OF NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT FELIGHT, IT TRAINING AND CONSULTING NO.15, BTM 100 FEET MAIN ROAD BTM 2ND STAGE NEAR JAYADEV HOSPITAL BENGALURU – 560 076. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S TESTING CAMPUS INFOTECH A PROPRIETORSHIP OFFICE AT NO.6, NEAR UDUPI GARDEN SIGNAL BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. PANKAJ P MUTHA SON OF PRITHVIRAJ H MUTHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK K. N, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6700 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-13), ALLOWING IA FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1&2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.6700/2018 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. The Appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 21.12.2018, has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC restraining the appellant from publishing/telecasting/hosting on its website defamatory articles against the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved because the impugned order given its width, tantamount to blocking the entire website. The appellant in support of the appeal files an affidavit undertaking inter alia not to publish/telecast/host on its website defamatory articles against the respondent. The appellant further undertakes to remove defamatory contents from its website.
The relevant paragraphs read as follows:
“2. I sate that, respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No. 6700/2018 on the file of CCH- 13 seeking permanent injunction against the appellant herein from publishing statements, circulating telecasting hosting the defamatory articles contents video pictures etc in the social medias like facebook, twitter, whatsapp, LinkedIn, you-tube, mouth shut, complaint board, glassdoor, felight.com and such other internet channels and electronic medias and such other social media..
3. I state that, I herby undertake before this court that I shall not, in future, publish, circulate, telecast, hosting any defamatory articles, contents video, pictures etc in the social medias like face book, twitter, whatsapp, LinkedIn, you-tube, mouth shut, complaint board, glassdoor, felight.com and such other internet channels and electronic medias and such other social media against the respondent and his entity herein.
4. I further undertake that, either by myself or by my representatives shall not in future, publish circulate, telecast, hosting any defamatory articles, contents video, pictures etc in the social medias like face book, twitter, whats app, LinkedIn, you-tube, mouth shut, complaint board, glassdoor, felight.com and such other internet channels and electronic medias and such other social media against the respondent & his entity.
5. I state that, I have already removed all the contents which are against the respondent herein and further undertake to remove such defamatory contents if it is found in my website viz. felight.com.”
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the undertaking, the appeal could be disposed of modifying the impugned order.
4. In the light of the undertaking in the affidavit and the submission thereon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified, and the appellant shall act strictly in accordance with the undertaking.
SD/-
JUDGE nv