Partly allowed¶10

S.P.Velumani v. M.K.Stalin

Madras HC26 Aug 2025A/1500/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

additional documents; Judge's summons; Schedule; relevancy of documents; defamation; libel; per se defamatory; publication; viewers; damage to reputation; FIR; closed FIR; departmental complaint quashed; Hon'ble Apex Court orders; final arguments; Additional Master-III; recording of evidence; Application No. 1500 of 2025; C.S.No.267 of 2019; S.P.Velumani v. M.K.Stalin; Madras High Court; partly allowed; 25.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Document Nos. 1, 4 to 6 to the schedule to the Judge's summons directed to be received as additional documents on the side of the applicant; liberty to rely upon document Nos. 7, 8 & 9 during final arguments; matter listed before the learned Additional Master-III for recording of evidence on 25.09.2025. ¶10

S.P.Velumani Vs M.K.Stalin — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the nine additional documents listed in the Schedule to the Judge's summons and filed by the applicant should be received in the suit. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

With reference to document Nos. 1, 4 to 6 alone, the applicant is at liberty to rely upon document Nos. 7, 8 & 9 during the final arguments in the suit.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for libel, not only must the statement be found per se defamatory, it must also have been viewed by other people leading to damage of the applicant/plaintiff's reputation; on perusal of the plaint and reply statement, the applicant had pleaded loss of reputation due to the defamatory statement made by the respondent.

¶8

Key takeaways

The application is partly allowed and document Nos. 1, 4 to 6 to the schedule to the Judge's summons are directed to be received as additional documents on the side of the applicant.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (K.KUMARESH BABU J.), Application No. 1500 of 2025 in C.S.No.267 of 2019 - S.P.Velumani v. M.K.Stalin (order dated 26-08-2025). The applicant sought to receive nine additional documents listed in the Schedule to the Judge's summons in a libel suit founded on a statement allegedly made by the respondent on 04.04.2019. Counsel for the applicant did not press Serial Nos. 2 & 3 (FIR-related documents) and stated that Serial Nos. 7 to 9 (orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court by which a departmental complaint against the applicant on the very same allegations was quashed) would be relied on at the argument stage. The Court observed that in a suit for libel the statement must not only be per se defamatory but must also have been viewed by others leading to damage of reputation, and noted that the applicant had pleaded loss of reputation in the plaint and reply statement; the documents in Serial Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 were sought to be marked to substantiate that the defamatory statement reached many viewers. Held: application partly allowed - document Nos. 1, 4 to 6 directed to be received as additional documents on the applicant's side; liberty granted to rely on document Nos. 7, 8 & 9 during final arguments; matter listed before the learned Additional Master-III for recording of evidence on 25.09.2025.

¶1

A NO. 1500 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A No. 1500 of 2025

¶7

in C.s.No.267 of 2019

¶8

S.P.Velumani

¶9

S/o.Late Mr.Palanisamy, No.7/1-C, Sugunapuram East, Kuniamuthur, coimbatore 641006

Applicant(s)

M.K.Stalin

S/o.Late M.Karunanidhi, No.25/19, Chittrangan Road, Cenotaph Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

For Applicant(s): Mr.K.Gowtham Kumar

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Manuraj

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present application has been filed to receive the nine (9) Additional Documents filed by the Applicant morefully described in the Schedule appended to the Judges summons.

¶19

Heard Mr.K.Goutham Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and

¶20

Mr.S.Manuraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that due to inadvertence, the

¶23

documents listed under the Judges summons have been failed to be produced before this Court along with the plaint or the reply statement and he would submit that the documents are relevant to the suit to substantiate his case and therefore he would pray this Court to receive additional documents listed in the Judge's summons.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr.S.Manuraj learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the suit was filed as early as on 10.04.2019, the written statement was filed on 23.08.2022 and that a reply statement was also filed on 15.11.2022 and issues were framed on 03.04.2023 and referred to learned Additional Master-III for recording of evidence where the same was pending from 02.08.2023 to 06.12.2024 and presently the said application had been filed.

¶25

He would submit that the time line itself would show that the applicant is trying to protract the proceedings. He would further submit that the defamatory remarks were made during the political campaign. He would submit that the documents listed in Serial Nos.2 & 3 are not relevant to the suit as the FIR had not been registered at the instance of the applicant and further the said FIRs had been closed against which no proceedings have been initiated. He

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

would further contend that the documents sought to be received in Serial No.7 to 9 are only

¶28

the orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court which may not also help the applicant as the respondent is not a party to the said proceedings and therefore, he would pray this Court to dismiss the application.

¶29

In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that he will not press the documents in Serial Nos. 2 & 3 to the Judge's summons and with regard to the documents in Serial Nos. 7 to 9, he may be permitted to rely upon the same at the time of arguments as under the said orders the complaint filed by the Department as against him on the very same allegation made by the respondent have been quashed.

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either

¶31

side and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

The issue that is to be decided by this Court is only with reference to the documents Nos.1,

¶33

4, 5 & 6 appended to the Judge's summons. The suit had been initiated based upon a statement which is alleged to have been made by the respondent herein which according to

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

the applicant is per se defamatory. The applicant had filed a compact disc containing the said

¶36

defamatory allegations made on 04.04.2019. The document in Serial Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6 to the schedule to the Judge's summons are sought to be marked to substantiate that the said defamatory statement made on 04.04.2019 which had reached many viewers damaging the reputation of the applicant. It is axiomatic that in a suit for libel not only the statement made is to be found per se defamatory but also had been viewed by other people leading to damage of reputation of the applicant/ plaintiff and from the perusal of the pleadings in the plaint and the reply statement, it could be seen that the applicant had pleaded loss of reputation due to the defamatory statement made by the respondent.

¶37

9.For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find no impediment in partly allowing the application that with reference to document No.1, 4 to 6 alone, the applicant is at liberty to rely upon document Nos. 7, 8 & 9 during the final arguments in the suit.

¶38

10.In fine, the application is partly allowed and document Nos.1, 4 to 6 to the schedule to the

¶39

Judge's summons are directed to received as additional documents on the side of the applicant.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

11.List the matter before the learned Additional Master-III for recording of evidence on

25.09.2025.

26-08-2025

Gba

M.K.Stalin S/o.Late M.Karunanidhi, No.25/19, Chittrangan Road, Cenotaph Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.P.Velumani v. M.K.Stalin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Velumani v. M.K.Stalin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Srinivasan Ramani and 5 others Vs M.S.K.Selvakumar and another

Pravin Chandra K Shah (Deceased) 1.Madhukar Shah and 5 others Vs No Respondent

Mrs. Sridevi and 2 others Vs Mr. R. Dhiraj

Suresh Kumar Vs Mumtaj Bheevi (Deceased)

G.David Ajay Kumar and 5 others Vs The Church of South India and 4 others

Pollachi v.Jayaraman Vs Nakkheeran Gopal and 10 others