Rajiv Sahai Endlaw ORDER
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
IA No. 15033/2019 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 554/2019 & IA No. 15032/2019 (u/O. XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC)
3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for (i) recovery of damages for defamation; (ii) restraining the defendant from further defaming the plaintiff; and, (iii) taking down of the allegedly defamatory content.
4. The allegedly defamatory allegations are with respect to the complaint made by the defendant against the plaintiff of sexual harassment at work place and the legal proceedings emanating therefrom. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been leaking to the media, particularly the electronic media her version of the complaint and the legal proceedings in pursuance thereto.
5. The defamation alleged is of 8th October, 2018, though, it is also the plea that the defendant re-posted the allegations on 10th, 11th and 13th October, 2018. The suit has been instituted first on 9th October, 2019 and re- filed on 22nd October, 2019 and has come up today before this Court for the first time.
6. It needs to be considered whether re-posting of the allegedly defamatory allegations furnish a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff particularly when the initial posting remains on the electronic media.
7. The counsel for the plaintiff, on enquiry as to how the suit claim for damages is within time, states that the Courts were closed from 2nd to 8th October, 2019 on account of the Dusshera vacations and thus the suit filed on 9th October, 2019 is within time.
8. The plaintiff in the present case has also alleged defamation inter alia by publication in April, 2017 of contents of FIR lodged by defendant against plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff, with reference to Youth Bar Association Vs. Union of India MANU/SC/1339/2016 : (2016) 9 SCC 473 directing publication of all FIRs, contends that FIRs relating to sexual harassment are exempted therefrom.
9. There is however no plea in the plaint, of the FIR lodged by defendant against plaintiff having not been published and the counsel for plaintiff states that he will check and the matter be passed over.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff however, on enquiry states that the claim in this suit is not on the basis of the said publication of the contents of the FIR, which was beyond one year preceding the institution of suit.
11. The counsel for the plaintiff informs that CS(OS) 530/2019, filed by one Sriparna Tikekar, against the same defendant and arising out of the same incident, had come up before this Court for admission on 18th October, 2019 and has handed over a copy of the order of that date.
12. Though in CS(OS)530/2019 which had come up on 18th October, 2019, no ex parte orders sought were granted, but the counsel for the plaintiff has today sought to re-argue the matter. It is argued, (a) that the defendant has been successively improving her case and causing prejudice to the plaintiff; (b) from selective release of news by the defendant, the plaintiff is being subjected to a media trial and is suffering; and, (c) that at least the defendant be restrained from going to the media with respect to filing of the present suit by the plaintiff.
13. I have considered the contentions made today by counsel for plaintiff.
14. In Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs. Youtube LLC MANU/DE/3284/2019 I have inter alia held as under:
"11. The case of the plaintiff cannot be equated to other cases coming up before this Court of chara........