DAINIK TRIBUNE vs AMIT SUNEJA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 + C.R.P. 139/2022, CM APPL. 40008/2022 DAINIK TRIBUNE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mr. Akshaya Agarwal, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advs. for P-1 Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Adv. for P-2 versus AMIT SUNEJA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Srishti Saini, Adv. for R-1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 12.07.2020 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has held that the suit as filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) is maintainable against the Petitioners (Defendant Nos. 3 and 5). 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners do not dispute the fact that the Impugned Order was passed on the basis of oral averments. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff had sued a newspaper(s) for printing defamatory content. However, instead of suing the newspaper(s) through its Editor-in-Chief or the printer or the publisher as is the requisite mandate of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the suit has been naming the newspaper(s) itself as party. Thus, it is contended by the Petitioners that the suit as filed is not maintainable. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.04.2025 C.R.P. 139/2022 Page 1 of 2 18:03:50 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioners, time and again, have been delaying the adjudication of the proceedings. Learned Counsel further submits that a suit for defamation has been filed on