A.M. Ahmadi ORDER
A.M. Ahmadi, J.
1. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, the defendant in Suit No. 945/89 pending on the original side of the Bombay High Court, has filed this petition under Section 25 of the CPC, 1908 (The Code' hereafter) read with Order XXXVI-B of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, praying for the transfer of the aforesaid suit from the Bombay High Court to any Civil Court in Karnataka, preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore, on the ground of forum non-convenience
2. The respondent Shri Ramakrishna Hegde has filed the aforesaid suit in the Bombay High Court claiming a sum of Rupees one crore by way of damages for injury caused to his reputation by the publication/ imputation of certain alleged defamatory statements made by the petitioner at a Press Conference held in New Delhi on January 10, 1989 which was attended by several members of the Press and media specially invited to the said Conference. The allegation in the plaint is that the petitioner levelled several accusations against the respondent at the said Press Conference which were widely circulated/reported in the newspapers of January 11, 1989. These allegations have been catalogued in Clauses (a) to (p) of paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is also alleged that the petitioner had also issued a written statement containing allegations set out in Clauses (q) to (y) of paragraph 5 of the plaint and followed it up by further similar allegations made on January 12, 1989 and January 27, 1989, all of which are per-se defamatory. We need not set out the allegations forming the basis of the suit as they are not relevant for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the suit filed by the respondent in the Bombay High Court is for damages for in jury caused to his reputation.
3. The petitioner is a politician who is serving his fourth term as a Member of Parliament and is presently a Member of the Rajya Sabha having been elected to that office on a Janta Party ticket sometime in March, 1988. He claims to have served on various Investigative Committee of Parliament, to have received his Doctorate from the Harvard University in USA where he later taught for almost a decade and to have published more than 150 books, articles and research papers on various aspects of Indian policy including economic policy of the country. On account of this background, contends the petitioner, he was able to understand, analyse and expose the details of the respondent's various acts of corruption, favouritism and nepotism committed during his tenure as Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, at the Press Conference of January 10, 1989. In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner states that he "accepts the publication of the allegations complained of by the respondent." It is thus seen that the factum of publication of the allegations is not in dispute.
4. The petitioner, however, contends that the most appropriate place for the trial of the suit filed by the respondent is the State of Karnataka where the various acts complained of were committed by the respondent from time to time during his tenure as the Chief Minister of the State. The grounds in support of the petitioner's contention may be summarised as follows: the petitioner's father maintains a family house in Bangalore; all the events that provide the defence to the liti........