Dr. M C Sudhakar Vs Sri. Veerendara Babu N

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.36711 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR.M.C.SUDHAKAR S/O.SRI CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA

¶9

DISTRICT-563 125

¶10

SMT.SAPNA SUDHAKAR W/O.DR.M.C.SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT.SHANTHAMMA CHOWDA REDDY W/O.CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA

¶13

DISTRICT-563 125

¶14

SRI CHOWDA REDDY S/O.M.C.ANJANEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SRI BALAJI M.C. S/O.CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI VEERENDRA BABU N. PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY KERE MATTU RAJAKALUVE ATHIKRAMANA OTTUVARI TERAVU KARYACHARANA HORATA SAMITI (KARNATAKA RAKSHANA PADE'S UNIT) NO.1652/6, 20^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN CQAL LAYOUT, 'C' BLOCK SAHAKARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 092

¶22

SRI PARAMESH V. PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY KERE MATTU RAJAKALUVE ATHIKRAMANA OTTUVARI TERAVU KARYACHARANA HORATA SAMITI (KARNATAKA RAKSHANA PADE'S UNIT) NO.1652/6, 20^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN CQAL LAYOUT, 'C' BLOCK SAHAKARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 092

¶23

V NEWS24 KANNADA CHANNEL VAKILSAB CORNER AT V NEWS24 KANNADA CHANNEL NO.1652/6, 20^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN CQAL LAYOUT, 'C' BLOCK SAHAKARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 REP. BY ITS EDITOR

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

SRI M.S.SAMANVAY S/O.M.C.SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶27

KUMARI. AKSHOBHYA REDDY D/O.DRI.M.C.BALAJI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.1805, MALAPALLY CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶28

… RESPONDENTS

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING RESTRAIN RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 AND THE EDITOR OF RESPONDENT NO.3 FROM CARRYING OUT DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶34

The petitioners are none other than the plaintiffs

¶35

before the trial Court. The present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶36

"a. For a restraint order restraining the Respondents No.1 and 2 and the Editor of

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the 3^rd Respondent from carrying out defamatory publications defamatory statements against the Petitioners.

¶41

b. For a restraint order restraining the respondents by issuing pamphlets, speech, publications slanderous remarks and carrying out such statements or such of the malicious statements defamatory which are defamatory and slanderous utterances but also in 3^rd defendant/respondent which is a News Channel, V News 24 Kannada at Vakilsab Corner at V News24 Kannada channel.

¶42

c. For cost of the petition."

¶43

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants

¶44

before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶45

I. pass a decree declaring that the action of the defendants, complained of herein is defamatory, insinuatory, libelous and slanderous, the same having harmed the personal image, reputation and public profile of the plaintiffs; besides the same having caused them a severe mental trauma and financial loss;

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

II. Consequently order directing the defendants for monitory compensation/compensatory damages for injury to the reputation and for emotional distress hurting the feelings and humiliation suffered to be compensated in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) with interest at 18% per annum till repayment of the amount.

¶50

III. For quantifying financial losses resulting from the defamation in reference to the property for which defamatory malicious statements made by carrying out libelous publications slanderous utterances as against the plaintiffs.

¶51

IV. For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out defamatory publications defamatory statements against the plaintiff not only by themselves by issuing pamphlets, speech, publications slanderous remarks and carrying out such statements or such of the malicious statements defamatory which are defamatory and slanderous utterances but also in 3^rd defendant which is a News Channel, V News

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

24 Kannada at Vakilsab Corner at V News24 Kannada channel.

¶56

V. For a mandatory injunction directing the 3^rd defendant to effect seizure or pinge the publications carried out in its news channel.

¶57

VI. pass such other orders and decrees as this Hon'ble Court may deem just expedient and necessary in the totality of the circumstances of the case including the award to the costs of the suit, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶58

Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed two applications namely, application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to restrain defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the Editor of defendant No.3 from carrying out defamatory insinuatory, libelous and slanderous publications in the You Tube, print media and in the VNews24 Kannada Channel. He also filed another application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from carrying out defamatory publications, defamatory statements against the plaintiffs not only by themselves but also issuing

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

pamphlets, speech publications, slanderous remarks,

¶63

carrying out such of the malicious statements in the news channels in VNews24 Kannada Channel.

¶64

It is the grievance of learned counsel for

¶65

petitioners-plaintiffs that the learned trial Judge has not passed any orders despite arguing the matter on 30.10.2025, has merely adjourned the matter to several dates thereafter and now issued emergent notice to the defendants and listed the matter on 04.01.2026, thereby

¶66

the trial Court has not passed any order on the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC while he requested and insisted the Court

¶67

to pass an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants as the matter was urgent in nature and certain defamatory statements are made against the plaintiffs, who are respectable citizens in the city. Apparently, it is seen from

¶68

the records that the trial Court has not passed any orders, no reasoning so also no finding are provided with regard to

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the request for urgent hearing on the applications seeking an ad interim order of temporary injunction. However, the trial Court has merely issued emergent notice to the defendants without making any observation with regard to issuance of such notice as well.

¶72

It is relevant to note that while considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the trial Court is obligated and duty bound to pass an order either to grant an ad interim order of temporary injunction or reject the same. However, while doing so, the trial Court has to provide reasons, which is not forthcoming in the impugned order as the trial Court has merely issued emergent notice, despite hearing the matter on 30.10.2025 and adjourning the matter on several dates. Apparently, it is seen that the impugned order is unsustainable as no reasons are provided.

¶73

It would be relevant at this stage to mention the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv

¶74

Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025], certain guidelines are laid down by this Court as to how the trial Court has to deal with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and in what situation, an ad interim order requires to be granted and how it is required to decide the application when urgent interim order is sought for by the plaintiffs. In the present case, the same having not been done, the

¶79

trial Court would have to hear and pass suitable orders by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court mentioned hereinabove.

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) This petition is allowed;

¶86

ii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed in O.S.No.253/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani and pass suitable orders by providing proper reasoning;

¶87

iii) The petitioners are at liberty to advance the matter before the trial Court, upon which, the advance application shall be allowed by the trial Court;

¶88

iv) The trial Court, immediately after allowing the advancement application, shall hear further if required and pass suitable orders by providing proper reasoning;

¶89

v) The learned trial Court Judge shall decide the application in accordance with the observations of

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:52974 WP No. 36711 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶94

cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993)3 SCC 161, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Mr.Shashidhara A.V. in WP.No.33725/2025 [Decided on 17.11.2025];

¶95

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶96

LB

¶97

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Dr. M C Sudhakar v. Sri. Veerendara Babu N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M C Sudhakar v. Sri. Veerendara Babu N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Eugene Winifred Vs Dr G Jasavaroyan

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Muniyappa

Smt. Meena Kumari Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Sri Venaktachala Reddy, Vs Sri Rame Gowda

Smt. B R Nethravathi Vs Sri B R Ramappa

Chikkathayamma Vs Rangaiah