IN THE

LEARNED COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

AT NORTH-LAND

IN THE MATTERS OF

MR. KNIGHTHOOD………..…………..…............................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

KNIGHTHOOD PVT LTD ……………………………….……………DEFENDANT

Civil Suit No. xyz/2021

[Under Sections 9, 15, 19 read with Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of The Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

 Contents
Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................... 4

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 5

Issues ......................................................................................................................................... vi

Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 7

I. The present suit is maintainable. ..................................................................................... 8

i. The court is competent to try the suit. ......................................................................... 8

ii. Civil wrongs have been committed by Knighthood‟ Pvt. Ltd..................................... 9

II. Knighthood Pvt. Ltd is liable for defamation. .............................................................. 10

i. The tweet by “Knighthood Pvt. Ltd.‟ is defamatory in nature. ................................. 10

ii. No intention to defame does not excuse the same. ................................................... 11

iii. Plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation& loss of his earnings. ........................... 11

Prayer ....................................................................................................................................... 13
 Index of Authorities

Cases

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala, Appeal (civil) 4774-76
of 1996.................................................................................................................................. 12
Firm of Illuri Subbaya Chetty & sons v. State of A.P., AIR (1964) SC 322 ........................... 12
K. Narayana Kurup v. Sankaranarayanan, AIR (2000) Ker 296 ............................................. 12

Statutes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908................................................................................................. 12

Other Authorities

Winfield, Def. „Defamation‟................................................................................................... 12

Provisions

Section 15, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.............................................................................. 12

Section 19, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.............................................................................. 12
Section 73, Besteros Contract Act, 1872. ................................................................................ 12
Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908................................................................................ 12
 Statement of Facts

1. M/S. KNIGHTHOOD CORP. PVT. LTD. (HEREINAFTER

REFERRED AS „KNIGHTHOOD‟ IS ENGAGED IN
RUNNING HOTEL CHAINS IN BESTEROS AND HAS ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE IN NORTH LAND DISTRICT. IT IS
FAMOUS
2. FOR HOSTING AND ORGANIZING GRANDEUR EVENTS. IT
HAS CREATED A SPACE FOR ITSELF IN VERY SHORT SPAN
OF TIME
3. FOR THE SAME REASON.MR. BATMAN BELONGING TO
NORTH LAND, BORN ON 1ST FEBRUARY 2002 IS
4. EMERGING SINGING SENSATION IN BESTEROS.
„KNIGHTHOOD‟ APPROACHED MR . BATMAN
PERFORMING
5. IN SERIES OF EVENTS TO BE ORGANIZED BY
„KNIGHTHOOD‟ IN BETWEEN DECEMBER 10, 2019-
6. DECEMEBER 10, 2021 AND FOR THE SAME MR. BATMAN
WILL BE PAID RS. 10 LAKHS QUARTERLY.
 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Plaintiff most humbly submits that this learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
located at Northland has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present matter
under Section 6, 9, 15, 16, 19 read with Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil
Procedure.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully
 Issues

I. Whether the suit is maintainable?

II. Whether Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. is liable for defamation?

 Summary of Arguments

In the present matter the wrong was done to the plaintiff in the territorial limits of Northland and
the plaintiff is a resident of Northland and the registered office of M/s Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. is
also in the Northland. So, the suit is viable to be instituted in the City Civil court of North Land,
Besteros and based on above cited authority it could be concluded that it is within its jurisdiction.

As per contract, both parties agreed upon, Mr. Batman the emerging singing sensational were to
perform series of event which has to be organized by Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. during 2019-20 in
consideration of Rs 10 Lakh quarterly per year. However, defendant has failed to pay the
consideration as promised by him in second quarter of 2020. Thus, there is a breach of contract
by the Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. which causes loss to Mr. Batman.

Thus plaintiff has cause of action for charges of defamation against Knighthood Pvt. Ltd as they
have hurt the reputation of plaintiff by publicizing against him by using his abusive words video.

Therefore, Mr. Batman is entitled to compensation.

 Arguments Advanced
I. THE PRESENT SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE.
The Plaintiff most humbly submits that this learned Court of Civil Judge located at North Land
has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present matter under Section, 9, 15, 16,
19 read with Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil Procedure.i

It is humbly submitted that present suit is maintainable because (i) the court is competent to try
the suit and (ii) Civil wrongs has been committed by „Knighthood‟ Pvt. Ltd.

i. The court is competent to try the suit.

The Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.ii

In the instant case, the Suit is for “Breach of Contract” and “Defamation” caused by the acts of
defendant which is of civil nature and has been neither expressly nor impliedly barred by any of
the given authority.

In dealing with question of a civil Courts jurisdiction, the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts
to entertain civil causes will not be assumed unless the relevant statute contains an express
provision to the effect or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of that nature.iii

Additionally, the burden of proof lies upon the party who asserts that the Civil Court‟s
jurisdictions ousted.iv

Thus, it is contented that this court is competent to try the suit.

Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.v

In the present case, the City Civil court is of lowest grade to try the suit and thereby competent
and most appropriate court to file the present Suit.

Moreover, where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person within the local limits
of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be
instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts,vi
In the present matter the wrong was done to the plaintiff in the territorial limits of Northland and
the plaintiff is a resident of Northland and the registered office of M/s Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. is
also in the Northland

Thus, the suit is viable to be instituted in the City Civil court of North Land, Besteros and based
on above cited authority it could be concluded that it is within its jurisdiction.

ii. Civil wrongs have been committed by Knighthood’ Pvt. Ltd.

In the instant case, there have been two civil wrongs committed by Knighthood Pvt. Ltd

i.e. a) there has been „breach of contract‟ and, b) Knighthood published defamatory statement
against Mr. Batman.

a) There is a breach of contract.

There existed the oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as per Besteros Contract
Act, 1872.vii

When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive
compensation for any loss or damage caused to him from the party who has broken the
contract.viii

As per contract, both parties agreed upon, Mr. Batman the emerging singing sensational were to
perform series of event which has to be organized by Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. during 2019-20 in
consideration of Rs 10 Lakh quarterly per year. However, defendant has failed to pay the
consideration as promised by him in second quarter of 2020.

Thus, there is a breach of contract by the Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. which causes loss to Mr. Batman.

b) Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. tweeted defamatory statement against Mr. Batman.

Publication of a statement that tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking
members of the society generally, or which makes them shun or avoid the person.ix Every man
has a right to have his reputation preserved. This right is recognized as an inherent personal right
of everyone against the world, i.e., jus in rem. A man‟s reputation is his property, considered
more valuable than any other property.
The standard to be applied is whether his reputation is affected in the estimation of right-thinking
members of the society generally.x

In the present case, Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. by publicizing all the evidences of abusive words used
by Mr. Batman and referring him as „Rich Brat – Cuckoo” has created buzz on social media
which has cause terrible damage to the plaintiff‟s reputation and loss of earnings

In case of E. Hulton&Co v. Jones,xiA newspaper article was published by the defendant‟s in the
Sunday Chronicle describing a motor festival and reference was made to one Artemus Jones, a
church warden in Peckham and it was stated that he was having a gay time and was in the
company of a woman, who was not his wife. The plaintiff, completely unrelated, had the same
name, and accepted that the writer of the article did not intend to refer to him. However, the
witness deposed that they took the article to refer to him.

CHANNEL, J. asked the Jury to consider that if a reasonable person knew about the existence of
the plaintiff, if he would be able to read the article and relate it to the plaintiff, the action would
be maintainable. Jury awarded damages in favor of the plaintiff.

Thus plaintiff has cause of action for charges of defamation against Knighthood Pvt. Ltd as they
have hurt the reputation of plaintiff by publicizing against him by using his abusive words video.

Therefore, Mr. Batman is entitled to compensation.

II. KNIGHTHOOD PVT. LTD IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION.

It is important to note that the falsity of the charge is presumed in the plaintiff‟s favor.xii Hence,
the burden of proof that the words are false does not lie upon the plaintiff.xiii

It is assumed that the statement is false by the court. The burden of proof lies on the defendant to
prove it is not false. Defamation of a person is taken to be false until it is proved to be true.

It is humbly submitted that the tweet & publicizing the video carrying abusive behavior by the
plaintiff tends to hurt the reputation of the plaintiff. It fulfills the essential criteria to be charged
under the tort of defamation based on its below mentioned contentions.

i. The tweet by “Knighthood Pvt. Ltd.’ is defamatory in nature.

For any statement or article to be considered defamatory it must be tested and the test which has
been laid down by the courts is “whether the article lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right
– thinking members of society generally”xiv with regards to this test the tweet has certainly had a
defamatory effect on the plaintiff.

ii. No intention to defame does not excuse the same.

Even though Knighthood Pvt. Ltd. did not have any intention to defame the Plaintiff they are not
excused and should still be held liable by the court. This rule was laid down in E. Houlton & Co
v. Jonesxvand is still being followed in India.

The party is only exempted from this rule if they have made an offer of amends which is an offer
to publish a suitable apology in the publication.xvi

In the present case, even though the mistake and its repercussions have been brought to the
notice they did not make an offer to amend and neither did they publish any apology.

iii. Plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation& loss of his earnings.

The Plaintiff is emerging singing sensation in Besteros. As it is said emerging, he has been in the
initial struggling years of his career. After the tweet of „Knighthood‟ and publicizing his personal
video where he used abusive words which carries the negative impact would lead to significant
decrease of his fans and a loss of his earnings. Adding to the misery and complication of the
Plaintiff‟s life, the respondents has not paid him his share as agreed in the contract, he felt
disgraced by Knighthood‟s act. All of the above together severely injured the Plaintiff‟s career.

In case of Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd,xviiA couple who is separated but not
divorced. Mrs. Cassidy is living in aseparate premise in a locality where Mr. Cassidy (a
distinguished person) would visit her, sometimes stays the night and leaves. Mr. C goes to a race
and gets a photo clicked w a certain woman, publishes the picture in a newspaper w the consent
of Mr. C who says that the woman is engaged to him and he will marry her. Mrs. Cassidy says
the publication has no direct ref to me, doesn‟t even talk about my existence. The publication is
w.r.t his marriage and the publication is w.r.t to the woman. It has been communicate to all my
friends in the locality that she was married to that man and that is why he used to come to my
house. They think she is of immoral character because after the publication they think they were
never actually married and she was of loose morals. This was the defamation

She got people to court who testified that they did believe that she was never married and they
did start thinking low of her after the particular publication.
HELD: The woman got compensation from the court as there is an implied refer that can be
drawn from the publication therefore there is defamation

In case of Morgan v. Odham’s Press Ltd,xviiiIt was published in a newspaper article that a girl
had been kidnapped by a dog-dopinggang and kept in a flat. Plaintiff produced witnesses that
deposed that on reading the article, they made some connection between the plaintiff and the
dog- dopinggang. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, be holding that there was no pointer
which referred to the plaintiff.

However, the House of Lords reversed the decision and held that it is not important for the
plaintiff to be named, or there should be some pointer which refers to him.

As has happened in the instant case, whereby, there has been straight pointer by referring the tag
of „Rich Brat- Cuckoo‟ as the plaintiff deemed to be son of highly influential bureaucrat turned
politician holding cabinet rank in the state government.xix

It could be concluded that such negative tweet and publishing has been done in order to spoil the
reputation of Mr. Batman and his reputed father as well which would lead to spoil their career as
well. Thus, Knighthood Pvt Ltd. is liable for committing the tort of defamation and Mr. Batman
is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained.
 Prayer

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it

is most humbly and respectfully prayed before the City Civil Court, that it may be pleased to :-

Grant compensation of Rs. 6 lakh to the Plaintiff, i. e.

a) Damages for Pain and Suffering worth Rs. 3 lakh and,

b) Damages for Loss of Earnings worth Rs. 3 lakh

Further, declare an order requiring the defendants to make publish an apology and pass any order
in favor of the Plaintiff which this Court may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of this is humbly submitted before this court.

Date: October 11, 2021 Counsel for the Plaintiff

S/d_________________

References

i
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
ii
Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iii
Firm of Illuri Subbaya Chetty & sons v. State of A.P., AIR (1964) SC 322
iv
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala, Appeal (civil) 4774-76 of
1996
v
Section 15, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
vi
Section 19, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
vii
Section 73, Besteros Contract Act, 1872.
viii
K. Narayana Kurup v. Sankaranarayanan, AIR (2000) Ker 296
ix
Winfield, Def. „Defamation‟
x
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd, ILR (2014) 2 Del 1288 : (2014) 207
DLT 713. 9.
xi
E. Houlton & Co v. Jones, (1910) AC 20.
xii
Belt v. Lawes, (1882) 51 LJ QB 359.
xiii
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th Ed., 269, Lexis Nexis
xiv
Sim v. Stretch, 1936 2 All ER 1237
xv
SupraNote11
xvi
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th Ed.,283, Lexis Nexis
xvii
Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd (1929) 2 KB 331
xviii
Morgan v. Odham‟s Press Ltd, [1971] 1 WLR 1239
xix
2nd Para, 12th Line, Moot prop