Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi, Chairman of Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, filed a defamation suit against defendants alleging defamatory videos and press conferences. The plaintiff claimed cause of action arose in Mumbai as his office is there and the content was accessible online. The court examined whether Section 19 CPC or Clause 12 Letters Patent governs jurisdiction. The court held that Section 19 CPC is a special provision for defamation suits, requiring the suit to be filed where the defamation occurs. Since the defamatory material originated outside Mumbai (press conference in Aurangabad, videos uploaded from elsewhere), leave under Clause 12 is mandatory. The court dismissed the interim application for injunction as the suit lacked jurisdiction without proper leave.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Defamation Suit - Jurisdiction - Section 19 CPC, Clause 12 Letters Patent - The court considered whether Section 19 CPC governs defamation suits in original civil jurisdiction and whether Clause 12 leave is mandatory when defamatory material originates outside but reputation is harmed within jurisdiction. Held that Section 19 CPC is a special provision for defamation suits and must be read with Clause 12; leave under Clause 12 is mandatory if the defamation originates outside the court's limits. (Paras 1, 10-15)
B) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Defamation - Section 19 CPC - The court examined the meaning of 'cause of action' in defamation, holding that it arises where the defamatory material is published, not merely where the plaintiff's reputation is harmed. The plaintiff's residence or place of business alone does not confer jurisdiction. (Paras 16-20)
C) Civil Procedure - Letters Patent - Clause 12 - Leave Requirement - The court clarified that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent requires leave for suits where the cause of action arises partly within and partly outside the court's jurisdiction. In defamation suits, if the publication occurs outside, leave is necessary even if the plaintiff suffers harm within. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs defamation suits filed in original civil jurisdiction of this Court and whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is mandatory for institution of such suits where defamatory material originates outside the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court, but Plaintiff's reputation is hurt within its territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the interim application, holding that the suit lacked jurisdiction without proper leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, as Section 19 CPC requires the suit to be filed where the defamation occurred.
Law Points
- Section 19 CPC governs defamation suits
- Clause 12 Letters Patent leave mandatory for defamation originating outside jurisdiction
- cause of action for defamation arises where defamatory material is published
- not where reputation is harmed
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 233
Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 31487 of 2025 in Suit (Lodg.) No. 31483 of 2025
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla, Mr. Rahul P. Jain, Mr. Ishwar Ahuja, Ms. Rukshin Ghiara and Mr. Yash Dethe i/b. M/s.Alhpa Chambers, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Gauraj Shah for Defendant No.1. Mr. Hasnain Kazi with Ms.Shraddha Vavhal, for Defendant No.2. Mr. Rishabh Jaisani with Mr. Harit Lakhani and Ms.Richa Bharti i/b. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, for Defendant No.3. Ms. Amishi Sodani i/b. Ms. Charu Shukla, for Defendant No.5. Mr. Azhar Tamboli, Defendant No.2 present.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil defamation suit seeking injunction against defendants for alleged defamatory statements.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining defendants from publishing defamatory content and mandatory injunction to remove existing content.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged that defendants made defamatory statements in a press conference and on social media, harming his reputation.
Previous Decisions
Leave Petition (L) No. 32358 of 2025 was disposed of on 10 October 2025 observing that Para 61 of the plaint contained a pleading that the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai.
Issues
Whether Section 19 CPC governs defamation suits in original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
Whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is mandatory for defamation suits where the defamatory material originates outside the court's local limits but the plaintiff's reputation is harmed within.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that cause of action arose in Mumbai as his office is located there and defamatory content was accessible online in Mumbai.
Defendants argued that the defamation occurred outside Mumbai (press conference in Aurangabad, videos uploaded from elsewhere) and thus leave under Clause 12 was required.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 19 CPC is a special provision for defamation suits, requiring the suit to be instituted where the defamation occurs. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent requires leave for suits where the cause of action arises partly within and partly outside the court's jurisdiction. In defamation, the cause of action arises where the defamatory material is published, not merely where the plaintiff's reputation is harmed.
Judgment Excerpts
An issue of seminal importance, which the Court is tasked upon to adjudicate, is whether Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would govern defamation suits filed in original civil jurisdiction of this Court and whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would be mandatory for institution of such suits where defamatory material originates outside the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court, but Plaintiff's reputation is hurt within its territorial jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Suit (Lodg.) No. 31483 of 2025 and Leave Petition (L) No. 32358 of 2025 seeking leave under Clause 12. On 10 October 2025, the Leave Petition was disposed of observing that Para 61 of the plaint contained a pleading that the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai. Thereafter, the present Interim Application was filed seeking interim relief.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 19
- Letters Patent (Bombay): Clause 12
