What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that while the reasons provided were not adequate, the trial court should have been more liberal in granting extension, considering the potential consequences of the suit. The court allowed the extension subject to payment of costs.

The petitioner, defendant No.6, failed to file a written statement within the stipulated time in a suit for injunction. An application for extension of time was rejected by the trial court due to insufficient reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for extension of time to file a written statement without being sufficiently liberal, despite the delay being substantial.

Etv News vs K Govindaraj | Karnataka High Court 2022

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.52541 OF 2019 (GM - CPC)

BETWEEN:

ETV NEWS, PANORAM TELEVISION, 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILIDNG, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027, REPT. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER NOW CALLED AS TV-18. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT.KALPANA P.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

K. GOVINDARAJ, S/O KEMPA R, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.206, 2ND MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 071. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF CPC PASSED BY THE LOWER COURT-27 ADDL. CCJ, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.4506/17 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 ORDER The defendant No.6 in O.S.No.4506/2017 has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 14.10.2019, in terms of which, an application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time to file the written statement was rejected.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

The suit in O.S.No.4506/2017 was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any panel discussion or broadcasting any television programs relating to "daily controversy". The plaintiff also sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to publish an unconditional apology in all the television channels.

The defendant No.6 was served with the suit summons, however, the defendant No.6 failed to file their written statement within the time granted by the trial

3 Court. An application was thereafter filed by the defendant No.6 for extension of time to file their written statement. The Trial Court rejected the application as the explanation offered by the defendant No.6 was not justified.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for defendant No.6 submitted that the defendant No.6 is based in Noida and it could not make arrangement for proper representation and for proper filing of the written statement within the time granted. She also submitted that the relief sought for in the suit had serious constitutional issues as the right of freedom of speech was sought to be curtailed and therefore, the defendant No.6 was entitled to be heard. Hence, she submitted that the trail Court ought to have been liberal in granting permission to file their written statement.

This is countered by the learned counsel for the plaintiff who contended that the affidavit

4 accompanying application for condonation of delay was absolutely bald and did not set out proper and adequate reason for condonation of delay of nearly two years in filing the written statement.

The suit was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from publishing or telecasting any programs relating to a controversial diary that was seized by Income Tax Department. The plaintiff sought for injunctive relief against the defendant No.6 against the publication of any programs relating to the said "diary controversy". Having regard to the fact that the requirement of filing their written statement within a period of 120 days is held to be directory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India [AIR 2005 SC 3353]. The trial Court ought to have been moved liberal in considering the request for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the affidavit accompanying the

5 application for extension of time did not bare out adequate reasons for condonation of delay. However, having regard to the consequences that could follow after the Judgment and Decree that may be passed in the civil suit, it is appropriate that extension sought for by the defendant No.6 is granted by compensating the plaintiff. Hence, the following; ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. Defendant No.6 is permitted to file its written statement within a period of one month from today subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) payable to the plaintiff before the trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today.

Sd/- JUDGE NR/-

ETV NEWS vs. K GOVINDARAJ

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments