L1 in THE COURT or THELD. DISTRICT JUDGE (EAST) KARKARIDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI mo NO. 2017 ARISING our or cs NO. 1161/2017 In the Matter of: Juggernaut Books Pvt: Ltd. Versus Swami Ramdev Ors. - A . 1 APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE '1 READ SECTION 151 TIIE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINSI ORDER OF EX- AD- INTERIM PASSED BY THE COURI OF . TIIE LD. THE APPELLANT FROM I ING, AND SELI ING BOOKS Most Respectfully Showeth; I . This appeal is being preferred against an exrparte ad interim order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Court of the Ld. Nipun Awasthi, by which the Appellant and other Defendants are restrained from publishing or selling copies of the book Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Bohr: (?IrnpugnedLOrder?): The Impugned Order is annexed herewith at ANNEXURE m?uan-t The lmpugned Order is ex facie bad in law, and has been passed without application of mind or examination of even the material which was placed on record bV the Plaintiff In passing the ImpugnedJ Order in unexplained haste, on the date Of the institution of a suit which is technically defective, without hearing the Defendants, the Ld. has in effect 1 censored a book without, consideration of its contents or merits, and in the teeth of the law. Further, the Impugned Order is effectively a final order and records findings which are final in nature. Without beingr heard, the Appellant andother Defendantshave been subjected to a broad and sweeping injunction. 5 3. The book Godwin? to lit/coon: The Untold Story of Balm andc?u (?Book") is a trutl?tful, even handed and balanced consideration of the history of Baba Raindev, which has been meticulously researched and is based on public and recorded sources, most of which have been in the public domain for years. The Book is not based on fresher new claims or statements, and the contents are based factually on happenings reported on widely in the media and made available to the public prior to the publication of ?the ?Book. All-of the statements that the Impugned lOrder has drawn attention __to have been stated earlier by mainstream newspapers such as the Dainik Bhaskar, lndian Express, Times of India etc. None of these articles have occasioned such a civil suit or any other action in law, and it is only now that the Plaintiff/ Respondent No. '1 has chosen to take action. A copy of the Book is annexed herewith'at wm?w. I . 4. At the yery Outset, theAppellant and the author-stand by the Book as it is published and submit Ito'this Hon?ble Court that they honestly hold the belief that the Book is, trutl?iful and not defamatory. Therefore in terms of the law as set forth in Bonnard and judgments following the said principle, no injunction can'be sustained and the matter must tried. If the impugned Order had not been passed ex parte, this undertaking would have been given to the Court, of the Ld. 5. The Respondent No. 1' is aipublic figure, and ell known public persona. He is associated closely with a company that a cording to the numbers set forth in the Suit, has revenues of more than Rs. 10,000 Crores. He appears on the television on a daily basis andis equally in the newspapers on a daily basis. He has made-statements in public which pertain to the politics of indie, which are also widely reported. In short, he is one of the most, well known persons in Indiatoday. Therefore, itiis not possible that the mere repetition of statements which have been made before many times, could have any effect on the ,4 reputation of the Respondent 1/ Plaintiff. As a public figure, the - standard of irreparable harm to his reptitation must be commensurately high. It is submitted that the Irnpugned Order has been passed in response to a Plaint where the. Respondent No. l/Plaintiff has not even explicitly stated that the contents of the Book are materially false merely that they show the Respondent No. 1/ Plaintiff a poor light. Asa matter of fact, it is submitted that the contents of the book are true statements, made fairly, on the basis of publically available documents and recorded interviews; I?l'hebasis of the Book included references to more than 180 press articles, more than 1100 documents obtained from the, Registrar of Companies, 28 taped ?interviews and many Right to informationrequests. Each of the facts Cited in the order as controversial has been the sub'ect of ress eculation and has even been debated in . . letil?lal?iv? assemblies of states. Thelmpugned Order is passed incorrectly ex facie in that the law has held that an injunction cannot be granted against work concerning a public figure, on issues of public interest,'even if they are later discovered to be defamatory. It is only possible to grant an injunction where no defense could ever have been possible. This position has been espoused the Hon?ble Supreme Court oflndia and the Hon?ble High Court of Delhi. The Impugned Order was also incorrect on facts as there was no prima facie case made out, (ii) there was no possibility of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience wasinfavour of the Book continuing to be published. The Book was at the time of the passing of the order already widely available in the market, and has already reached thousands of readers. An injunction serves no purpose except to prejudice the Defendants financially and reputationally. 10. The Appellantis aggrieved as the Impugned Order has restrained the publication and the sale of the Book without an opportunity of hearing l'l. . in the teeth of the law. It is humbly submitted that the Book assailed as defamatory in this suit .. which was written entirely in the public interest, and with no dice or personal agenda against the Respondent No. 1/ Plaintiff as an individual ., is neither defamatory nor otherwise in contravention of the laws of India, and it has only reported true facts as gleaned from publicly available documents, and merely contains legitimate: and reasonable surmises and conclusions drawn therefrom. The issues pertaining to the meteoric rise of one of India?s biggest companies "and most important public figures Which are raised in the Book are all I important issues of?public interest, and legitimate debate surrounding these topics cannot be stifled in a democracy by invoking the anti?Free Speech weapon of defamation lawsuits. The Beok is not even theiirst- full length book about Respondent No. 'There are at present a number of full length books about the Respondent No 1 IThey include Front Mokslm To Market.- The Balm Ranidezi Plienonwnon bv Kaushik Deka, Ranzdev Balm- 7 Life lessons by Cartier, Ek Yog1,Ek . by Sandeep Gurus- Stories of Indies Leading Babas by Bhavdeep Kane log Guru Sienna Ramdev by Ashok Raj, The Life and Times of Balm WRamriev by Ashok Raj, Balm Ramdev and The Resurgence of the New Movement by Mahendru and Babs Ramdev Ke Sapnon Kr: Bl-zarat by Mahendru. It is submitted that all of these books exist in the market and are being read by those interested in Baba ?amdev. Any idea which is stated in one book may be controverted another book, and any impression conveyed to a reader in one book may be opposed in another. Furthermore, even the Respondent No. 1 has published pieces on a wide variety of issues -. eg. Philosophy and Practice, It is in public interest that there be as many views as possible circulating in the marketplace of ideas, especially when pertaining to figures and issues of national in-1portance. Copies of the cover pages of these books are annexed herewith at ANNEXUREC . It is humbly submitted that no statement whatsoever in the Book is per se defamatory, obviously untrue, or incapable of being reasonably substantiatedi and the Respondent No. 1 is therefore attempting to impinge on the freedom of the media, and also the inviolable right of the [Defendants to practice thei1 professional callileg (of free, fearless and fan iepo1ting), by filing strategic lawsuits. .Every statement appearing in the Book is either itself a demonstrably true statement of fact, or a reasonably and ilegitimately~held opinion or inference of the author of the Book (drawn, in turn, from facts available in the public domain, and interviews conducted by the Author); and pertains to the public affairs of a person in public life..- Moreover, the issues which are discussed in the said Book are 13 14. also confined only to matters of public interest, and the private life of the Respondent No. 1 is not at all discussed. . lt is3to be noted?that, in Indian law, in order. to establish that a particular statement - written or spoken is defamatory, it must be proved not only that it was published, but also that-it was false, and that it was calculated to lower the reputation of a specific person (or an identifiable set of people) in the eyes of?the general public. Where the subject of the article is a person in public life and holding public office, reasonable infeiences concerning the actions of such persons, and bona fide questions pertaining to the commercial affairs of such person, cannot be said to be ?defamatdry?; Thus, the plaint does not disclose any cause~0f-action in law, and ought to have been rejected in liming. In a case for injunctive reliefs? against allegedly defamatory material, as in every case seeking theorelief of injunction, the Plaintiff has to cogently establish that the article complained of is prima facie defamatory of the Plaintiff, and balance of convenience must also be established. Furthermore, and before Wettingr into all other issues, the Plaintiff of course - bears the onus of proving that defamatory words concerning him were at all published for which it is simply not sufficient for him to merely show either that lie-has a reputation, or that he is the subject of the article, or that he personally disagrees With the contents of the article. He must also show that the article. unfairly casts him in a false light, and that it is factually not true, and that the opinions of the author expressed therein are not at all warranted by facts or otherwise protected by the doctrine of ?fair comment?, and that the contents of the article have in fact caused his reputation to be ltiiwered inthe publicist estimation. None of these facts has even been pleaded in the Plaint in a cogent fashion, or sufficiently to meet lo. 1 6 the standard of the law. A copy of the Plaint and the Applications as received by the Appellant/Respondent.No. 1 is annexed herewith at ANNEXURE 'o (CollyJ', EACH PORTION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT or REPORTING BY THE MEDIA AND HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE . "The has taken exception in the Impugned Order to some of the contents of the Book and has set out certain portions in the lmpugnecl OrderQ It is pertinent to state that the portions which have been set out in the Irnpugnecl Order do not correspond to the portions set out in the plaint presented to. the Hon?ble Court. The Ld. has conducted a roving enquiry into the Book, only without the benefit of hearing the Defendants. . The first portion extracted in the lmpugned Order at Paragraph 7 to allegations made by media sources about land allocations and' discounts from RIP led gmternments, These- allegations have not only been ll 17. '19. [up widelyreported in the international or'national media, but they have also been the subject of extensive debates in the legislative assemblies of l-laryana and t-iin?iachal l?ra'desh, which debates in turn have been heavily reported. These are eminently matters of national and public interest, touching on government actions. A selection of articles reporting on the land allocations and related issues is annexed herewith at Wigwg (carer At Paragraph 9, the portion extracted stat that in the villages of l?laryana, the Respondent No. ll has been re erred to as LalaWRamdev'. Even this statement, lioWever minor, has been widely discussed by the media. prior to the publication of the Book, and has been brought up in the proceedings of the'legislative assembly in Haryana. A selection of articles reporting the fact-that persons having been using the term ?Lala Ramdev? is annexed herewith at (Colle?. .?At Paragrap it), the Ld. concerns himself with the portions of the Book relating to the death of Raieev Dikshit and the circumstances surrounding it, and certain rumours prevalent at the time about the involvement of the ReSpondent No. 1 and his rebuttals to the same. These matters too were widely reported in the media and articles commenting on the issue are annexed herewith at ANNEXURE At Paragraph 11, the impugned Order'deals with the contents of the Book covering the issue of the mysterious disappearance of Shankardev, who was the Respondent?s Guru. There was very heavy reporting on all sides 20; of the facts and the investigation which was conducted by the CBI. A selection "of these reports, which were far more sensational in tone and content than the 800k, are annexed herewith at ANNEXURE (Colle', . The contents of the Book as a whole is taken from sources which are already in thel'public domain, many for years together, and otherwise from interviews diligently recorded by the Author. The Author, in? Defendant No. has even taken the steps of having'the interviews coi?ifirmed to be genuine from a forensic laboratory. The results of the forensic laboratory tests are annexed herewith at . As a matter of fact, all of the above issues have been far more explicitly dealt with by cc'intemporary reports in newspapers, TV channels and other media. If there was ever any Question of defamation, the Respondent No. 1 has acquiesced over and over again, and has been satisfied with rebut-ting allegations when confronted.- Those rebuttals and comments from the Respondent No. 1 and his team have all also been reported on and treated fairly in the book. .- BECAUSE the Ld. passed the Impugned Order ex?parte and did not give the Defendants a chance to stand by the Book or their statements. The law is categorical on the point that if'the Author and Publisher stand by their statements and claim truth and fair comment in relation to matters Concerning public figures, no injunction can follow. The Hon?ble l-iigh-Court of Delhi has held in multiple cases that the categorical assertion of the author standing by his/ her statement and claiming that they can substantiate the same is sufficient reason to vacate or- prevent an injunction. The principle is that pre?publication injunction or restraint should not be granted in case the defendant who supports the publication cites truth as a defense and pleads justification. In these cases damages arethe appropriate remedy. The Appellant is now making a statement to that effect on affidavit and it is bmitted that the injunction cannot be continued hereinafter. BECAUSE the id. has erred in finding that the reputation of Respondent No. 1. can be. said to be harmed by the contents of the Bookexitedingly prominent public flngI?t- by Virtue of l2 this media presence, popular appeeil; stature as a religious figure, yogi and I businessperson. Single Judge,- Delhi thigh Court in Phoolan Devi v. Shekhur Kapoor FTC 46, has defined public figure in, the context ?of defamation suits: 'IFor the purpose of standard to be applied in defamation action from the dictionary meaning ?piiblic?gm'e? is one who is famous or infmnous l'i'ecnuse 'ofwho she is or what she has done as public ?gure. Public ?gures, for. purposes of libel are those who have assumed roles of special pr'cmiinencc in society, for the right to prizacy action purposes, one ?who has arrived at decision where public atten 'on is focused upon him or her (is a person. is submitted that public figures are often in the public gaze and must be open to public scrutiny and criticism. In the classic case of Seymour 10. Butterwort'h (1862) 3 and 272, Cockburn Those who ?ll a public position must not be too thin skinned in refinenn? to conilininits made upon them. I mould?ciften happen that observations would be made ripen public men which they know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to he ini?sumlerslood for a time. C. BECAUSE the id. ACIJ-CCJ-ARC erred grievously- in not recognizing the element of public interest in publishing the material of the book. Respondent No. ?1 is a public persona and interest of public in knowing certain facts about the life of a' public figure outweighs the interest of Respondent No. in maintaining his reputation. In Sardar Sing/1 Arun Porto 71983 (4-) 86, the Hon?ble High Court of. Delhi relied on Galley on Libel and Slander while denying an injunction on publication: The plainti?ndniittetlly is a Member of Parliament. He is a public mnn?. tn Gritley on Libel, and Slat-idem 8th edition part: 884 page 387 it is observed: ?Tl-lOSEgi'uho public positions must not be too thin?skinned in t?t?j/?itt?i?mct? to made upon then-1?. "One who zmdertalces to ?ll 17 public office o?ermi llirstsetf to public attack and criticism; and it is now and retro gilded that the public interest requires that a man's public conduct shall be open to the most searching criticism?. D. BECAUSE the Ld. ACJ-CCJ-ARC erred grievously in passing the lmpugned Order without the Plaint even setting out explicitly the contents of the Book as false, of demonstrating any falsity with evidence. The Plaint repeatedly claims the contents of the Book to be malicious, controversial and juicy but does not demonstrate them to'be false. As such no causeof action is made out and the suit ought to be dismissed in limit-re. BECAUSE the impugned Orderl?has?been obtained by suppression "and misrepresentation. The Plaintiffghas claimed in the Plaint "that the publication defendants is not based on any public records nor does it relate to the acts or conduct relevant to the discharge of any action undertaken by the Plaintiff?. This is manifestly untrue from any copy of the Book which contains a substantial sources section setting out public sources for the contents of the Book. This is material falsehood intended to mislead a Court and. that. is sufficient: to cause the vacation of the injunction and the rejection of the plaint. . the lad. has. erred manifestly in holding that the overall effect that the book has on. a reader is to create a feeling of mistrust "in 'perscinality of Respo?ndentNo. 1 and the author?s sole objective has been to malign Respondent No. 1. The Book in question is an evenhanded account ?which deals with criticisms and controversies but is also full of praise and laudatory passages about the Respondent No. 1. The Author?s Note at the very outset of the Book details objectives behind writing the book and metl'iodology followed. The pertinent paragraph is reproduced below: . Each time we met,- had found him earthy, self?deprecating and tilisarmmg, generous with his time and deft in steering conversations to he wanted to say But I never felt that I really got to know him. Beyond his care?illy' cultivated public persona lay a master?illi/ grander! person of tremendOus will. The only may to tell his story,l believed, was to tell it through the voices of all the people he, worked with along the may to building his empire, those who?d had a chance to meet him in unguarded moments. The Author?s Note also states that fifty-two persons were interviewed as research for the book, and certain interviews have been taped. Additionally, media reports and publicdocun have been relied upon, and have been documented in the ?Sources? section. The effort has been to provide a complete and truthful journalistic account and to enable readers to review the source material and reach their own conclusion. . BECAUSE the 1d. has erred in holding that the paragraph present on page 205, C11 1aptei 25 itself adversely affects the'reputation of lxesp011dent1No. 1. The paragraph identified merely refers to a Reuters article, previously published and cited in the bibliography, which contains certain allegations against Respondent No.1. It must be noted that no action has been taken by Respondent No. 1. against Reuters, which published this article in May, 2017. Further, both pages immediately preceding and following page 205 contain several positive statements. about Respondent No. 1, his force of personality, and his legacy and do not contain any independent" or unsoixrced statements directly alleging use of public money for private gains. Further, where there is a weakness in a source ie. that reliance is placed on unpublished documents -- the same is explicitly set out. . BECAUSE the Ldi has erred in holding that page 201, Chapter 25 in and of itself contains defan'iatory material about the max kiwi-nix" sari 215. .. . .Qslu'Jn v-rod l5 Responding No. Cl'iapter 25 is entitled ?Conclusions? and the concluding statements identified on page 201 are in reference to previous cl'iapters of the book, each of which has a detailed bibliography containing external sources and reference to public documents. The Conclusions . chapter must he read in light of previous researched statements made in the hook and not in isolation. Further, the paragraphs following page 201 have lavishly praised Respondent No. 1?s business instinct and his contributions to the worlds of Yoga and Ayurveda. BECAUSE. the lad. has erred in holding that the paragraph on page 700, (L?Zhapter-Z?t contains material which leads, to the inference that Respondent No. .1 is a businessman, to the exclusion of being a social worker. Page 198 ?of the same Chapter 'states?that Respondent No. 1? has assured people that he runs. the company ?as ,a service to the nation' and contains a directquote of Respondent No. ?l in this regard. The relevant paragraph of page 198 is being reproduced here: Despite these constant question marks over Patanjali products, Indians cor-itinua to place their trust in the company. Their faith in the saffron- rohaii Raindeo remains intact because he repeatedly, self?assuredly and charmingly reassures them that he, in. thogrcat tradition of Hindu sad/ms, . is. running the coinpany as seroice to the nation. sleep on the floor, i am a the pro?ts are going to charity. 1 don?t own anything in my name. . .don?t trust-the multinatimials or stooges of other corporations inho defame me. They are doing so because they cannot stand the success I of'Patanjali? [Emphasis added] In the first chapter itself, Respondent No. 1?s motivation behind running a business have been clearly and unbiasedly reported. The relevant paragraphs on page 11?12 of Chapter 1 are set 0 hereunder: Questioned during a television in if sanyasi should be running a business empire, Balm Ramdev responded, in his trademark style, with a It flair aggressive smile on his face. ?Aecha,? he demanded, tilting hishead in that ?irniliarway, ?shoiu me where in Our scriptures is it iin'itten that a sanyasi has to retire to the Himalayas and do nothing else? I am a- karrna yogi and .a rashtra yogi; . The purpose is not. to accumulate any great ?wealth for myself. Looki there is an empire worth crores, no, hundreds of crores around us todf1}/_ [referring to Patanjnli?s assets], but even today, I slecipin a hat on the?oor. Whatever I have got from the . country, it is for the it?oiintry. of Patanjali is not for any one person~it is for-the country. It is all for charity.? I is difficult not to admire the sentiment. Or the devotion with which he set off to bring yoga and Ayurveda to millions of Indians not the kind that live. in Delhi and Mumbai alone but a so the ones who live in Tier 2 and 3 cities. BabalRai-ndeo kindled the resurgence of yoga in the country at the niillerniinni when he would appear on television every morning to teach yoga in his homely and practical way. his, thus, submitted that the selection of page 200 in Paragraph 9 of the, impugned Order'as containingdefamatory material is a clear instance of . cherry picking misstatements, without reading them in the correct context or within the scheme oi the book. BECAUSE the Id. has erred in. holding that the entire book is based on rumours?as heard and hearsay testimonials. The Author?s note states that titty-two persons were interviewed as research for the book, and certain interviews have been taped. Additionally, media reports and public documents have been relied upon, and have been documented in the ?Sources? chapter. Where. a rumour has been reported, it has been clearly identified as such and a reasonable reader will treat it with suspicion. Further, theBook itself has referred to the stories regarding these unexplained, coincidental events as being ?conspiracy theories? (p.136) and ?rumoursf (p.140). This fact has been acknowledged by the Ld. misumlers'tood to. be the s; . the id. has erred in find in paragraph 10.2 of the impugned Order, but has been Heading of rumours maliciously. ing that the reporting of the CBI Proceedings has been carried out in a manner to defame the Respondent No. ?the CBI proceedings have been reported the best of the author?s ability and she has, on her own, provided adequate explanation. as to her attempts to get further details. The author has clearly stated in the Book that she filed two RTIs for further information as to proceedings, bu information was not given for some reason or another. BECAUSE the has erred in finding that advertisements or marketing strategies which rely on highlighting or sensationalizing allegedly defan'iatorylmaterial have been adopted by the Appellant. The strategy followed is standard, given. the subject matter of the book i.e. well known persona and nature of the book i.e. biographical. The article contained on is not part of the marketing strategy of the Appellant and has not been published at its request. The M. Defendants cannot control what third parties in the market are saying and cannot be held liable for the same. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No. ?llhas notpursued-any action against this'website. BECAUSE the has erred in travelling beyond the Plaint in finding offending portions 'of'the Book. The entirety of the cause of action must be explicitly. pleaded in the Plaint by the Plaintiff and the Hon?ble Court cannotitravel beyond?those claims in passing orders. Reliance may be placed on Laws of England, Vol?28: 172. Pleading and proofofioords In in: action for defamation the words complained of, and not merely their substance, must be set out verbatim in the statement of where the plainti?r complains ofe book or long article, he must specify the tassages which he alleges to be defamatory rather than merely plead the zul ole book or article. /8 In Brijlal Prasnd Das AIR 1940 Nag 125, Krishna R110 22. Firm Rmnsahei AIR 1956 Nag 264, Narzumal Ram Prasad AIR 1926 All~67l2,1ndian courts too were pleased to find that the actual words used on which the charge for defamation is based should be set out clearly in the plaintiff he impugned Orderhas referred to page 200 and 205 of the book as containing statements likely to injure Respondent No. 1?s reputation. These pages have not been mentioned by Respondent No. 1 in his suit for injunction; Further, WhileRespondent No. 1 did not specify 'iwhieh- paragraph in Chapter 19? Myste-erB: The Mentor?s Sudden Death creates suspicion in the mind of the reader, the Ld. has supplied a paragraph of his own accord. Even where the Respondent No. 1 and the Ld. have both identified the same Chapters as being defamatory, the Ld. has relied upon different words han those pleaded. From Chapter ?16- Mystery 2; The Guru?s Disappearance, Respondent No. 1 has reproduced certain paragraphs of the chapter in his pleadings. The lmpugned Order has, however, focused on the use of the word ?mystery? in the title of the chapter as creating a doubt in the mind of the readers without this being an allegation in the Plaint. It is, therefdre, submitted - that there'hTis been of mind in passing the Impugned .Ord'er as there is no identity between the cause of action disclosed in the plaint and the grounds on which the lmpugned Order has been given. . BECEAUSE the id ACJ-CCI-ARC has erred in holding that any alleged . innuendos in the boot are capable of adversely affecting the reputation of Respondent No. 1. In alleging that'defamatory statement is not apparent on the face of the words, the innuendo must be set out in clear. and specific terms. I . BECAUSE the Ld. ACJ-CCJ--ARC has erred in not appreciating that the grant of interlocutory injUnctions? indefamation actions is frowned upon in law, and ought never to be passed ex-parte. As the Hon?ble High Court P. or of Delhi has held in a number of cases, there exist competing interests that of the author to write and publish and the right of an individual against invasion of privacy and the threat of defamation. However, the balancing of these rights should be considered at the stage 'of the claim of 'dai?nages for defamation rather than a preventive action for injuncting of against the publicaticm itself. BECAUSE the Ld. has erred in not appreciating that. lawsuits filed solely with the intent of censoring,intimidating and silencing critics by burdening them with the costs of legal defence, until they abandon their criticism or opposition - which are known by the commonlywused acronym of ?strategic lawsuit against :public participation?) will not be entertained by the courts of law. It is submitted that the instant suit has been filed with precisely this intent of removing legitimate commentary about the Respondent No. 1 /Plaintiff fromthe public domain and hence ought not to be entertained. BECAUSE the id. has failed to appreciate that the balance .of conveniencefavoursthe author'and publisher because a non-fiction book has a limited shelf life. injunctions are equivalent to a death sentence for abook. Ultimately, ifthe [Defendants succeed, no market for the Book will exist by the time the suit is finally decided. However, the Plaintiff may always be granted damages. BECAUSE the Ld'. has erred in not examining 'the nature of the book, i.e. a biographical account of Respondent No. 1. A biographical account would necessarily have to contain the acCounts Of friends, family and professional relations. It is submitted that the book truthfully reports the. accounts of people who?have claimed. to have been associated with Respondent No. 1, and who have voluntarily shared these accounts. BECAUSE theLd. erred grievously in issuing notice on a suit which suffers from serious technical defers. First, no valuation has been carried out and no amount of damages have been claimed by the I Respondent No. i1/?Plaintiff. The suit has not quantified the damages allegedly due to the Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the Plaintiff cannot. claim any damages in excess of the-pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in which he has filed the claim. BECAUSE the id. CCJ ARC eried in issuing notice on a suit which is not within the jurisdiction of the Hon? ble Court Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit- must be filed where the Defendants ordinarily reside or cairy out bbsiness. None of the Defendants reside or carry out work, in the East District of Delhi. No evidence of sale or purchase in East Districtof Delhi has been placed on record. The jurisdiction of this Hon?ble Court has not been made out with a single document, and none of the Partiesreside or'arebased here. The Defendant No. '1 in fact resides in Mumbai. The Defendant No. 2 has its office. in Shahpur lat, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The Defendants 0. 3 and 4 are based in Bangalore, and Defendant No. 5 is based in Manipal. liven if it is pleaded that Cause of action-has arisen in whole or in part, some documents or explicit statement must be made to such effect. The? plaint ought to be?returned to be refiled in- another court which does have . jurisdiction. . . BECAUSE the Ld. has effectively passed a final order in the guise of an ex-parte ad interim order. He has reached findings which severely prejudice the Appellant and the other Defendants. The findings. in the lmpugned Order, if not appealed would be binding even in arguments finally. . BECAUSE the Ld. has passed an order without applying his mind to the documents before_'hirn. This may be best seen from the piaver Claus se of the application for interim injunction, which prays f01 hep/"ram slain-ling to bis-0mm of. the suzt properly and restraining ix) i0 21 the from creating any nuisance, interference in the peace?tl scrim Pooja of the devote?s, trustees etc. and restraining the defendants from forcihiy occupying the ?rst. and seem-cit ?oor of the situated at the trust property.? It isl-telling that notice has been issued on this application and an ex~parte injulwction granted. BECAUSE the Ld. has erred" in permitting a suit which agitates such a personal right to be filed by power of attorney. The facts pleaded may not even be pleaded by a person other than the Plaintiff in. person. It is further of interest that the applications and affidavits have been signed on 02.08.2017 in New Delhi, and are attested seemingly in New Delhi while the stamp paper was purchased for the Power of Attorney on 03.08.2017, at 10.37 am in Roorkee. Therefore, the power of attorney is almost certainly subsequent in time. Further the Power of Attorney is generic and does not even touch upon the subject of the suit. . [No other appeal or writ petition or proceeding has been filed against the impugned Order or is pending in any court to the best. of the knowledge of the Appellant. .That the Appellant reserves its right to defend that Civil Suit on these grounds and others. "Prayer That in the light of the foregoing, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon?ble Court be pleased to: a) sh aside the order of the Ld. dated 04.08.2017 passed in cs No. 1161/2017; b) Direct that the suit and-applications be heard expeditiously; and 22 Pass any other ozder in the interests of- equity, justice and good and so the Appellant as in duty bound humbly prays. New Delhi Date: Appellant Filed through: Satyajit Sarna Advocate for the Appellant Address: 1-11 Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 Tel. No.2 011 4353 7698; 0 8826 233 398 Email. sat), 11111