cresaii o LCCH-1 of gaa sth Order Sheet In the Court of PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FR No, : 0.S./4496/2023 Registration No. : 0.8./4527/2023 Plaintiff Vs Defendent 71) SHEENAPPA, SH SHETTY ALIAS RAVI ALIAS ‘MAHESH THIMMARODI 2) SUKESH AS + -IVJAGADISH : -3) SUJATHA SHETTY ~3) PRABHA N:BELAVANGALA 3) PURANDARA -A4TSOMANATH NAYAK "SY BHOJA _5) BHAT BM -6) VITTAL GOWDA 7VODANADI SAMSTHE A) AVANIYANA A) AVINTV 10) SMART MEDIA MANGALURU -#1) KANNADA JANA JANEYARU | AD) DALI WORLD TELEVISION 13) THIRD EYE 44) TULUNADU NEWS _15) PEEPALTV _16) PRATIDHVANL 17) NEWS KARNATAKA 48) SANMARGA -19) CHANNEL $ MANGALURU 20) NEW] NEW EMERGING WORLD OF JOURNALISM LTD 21) PRASTHUTA NEWS 22) J3 TV KANNADA -23) GOOD NEWS KANNADA 24) STORE KARNATAKA, 25) V4 CHANNEL _ 26) NAMMA TV 27) M/S LANKESH PATRIKE —28) EE DINA.COM _29) THE NEWS MINUTE . ~30) MASTH MAGAA _31) PUBLIC MIRROR 82) NITESH KRISHNA PRASAD POLEPALLI ALIAS AHORATRA ALIAS. NATESH POLIPALLI . 33) UNIQ MEDIA 34) NEWS NOT OUT 35) SHANTHT KARANTHL-2- 95.0527 Ff —— ./36) SAKSHI NEWS 24 X 7 /31) NAMMAT V CHANNEL 38) SUDDHI 1 § 39) 4D NEWS AO) SUVARNA NEWS 24 X 7 _At) TV 9 KARNATAKA PRIVATE LIMITED 42) POWER T V NEWS 48) MIS BTV NEWS CHANNEL PRIVATE LIMITED : 4d) NEWS 18 -45) NEWS 18 KANNADA -A6) ZEE KANNADA -47) VARTHA BHARATHI -48) VJAYA KARNATAKA 43) POLICE NEWS 40) HAI BENGALURU 51) AGNI KANNADA JOURNAL 52) BHOVI SAMAJA. 53) GOOGLE META INDIA PVT LTD 54) META INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED 55) FACEBOOK INDIA ONLINE 56) GOOGLE LLC 57) YOUTUBE LLC 48) META PLATFORMS INC 49) WHATSAPP LLC ~60) X CORP St) INSTAGRAM LLC INJUNCTION SUIT Provision of Law : U/O 7 RULE 1 AND 2 AND R/W SEC 26 OF CPC Advocate for Plaintiff Sri/Srat, : RAJASHEKAR S Date of Filing : 16-07-2023 Date of Registration : 16-07-2023 Relief: PRAYS TO PASS JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS TO REMOVE FALSE FRIVOLOUS BASELESS AND VEXATIOUS VIDEO CONTENTS NADE SHARED UPLOADED TRANSMITTED FORWARDED BY MENTIONING THE NAMES OF SRI KSHETRA DHARMASTHALA THE INSTITUTIONS RUN BY KSHETRA ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED BY OHARMASTHALA TEMPLE ITS HEAD OF INSTITUTION REFERRING HIM AS KHAVANDARU D VEERENDRA HEGGADEYAVARU AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS CAUSING LOSS TO THEIR REPUTATION INTEGRITY AND CAUSING MENTA MENT AND AS PRAYED IN THE PLAINT. Date af Cause of action Receipt No. Purpose and Date Mode 20721/2023-2024 Court Fee on Plaint 18-07-2023 Cash Amount 100,00. =-3- « 20721/2023-2024 Process Fee 18-07-2023 Cash 80.00 1) 1A 1/2023 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC Rete: PRAY TO PASS AN AD INTERIM EXPARTE INJUNCTION ORDER DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS, ETC FROM TO RENOVE/DELETE THE UNVERIFIED TALSe® BASELESS, RECKLESS, ALLEGATIONS, MENTZONED IN THE SCHEDULE AND ag PRAYED TH IA. 2) 14 2/2028 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2.cPC WAReber PRAYS TO PASS AN AD INTERIM EXPARTE INJUNCTION ORDER RETRAINING THE DEFENDANTS. Ere FROM MAKING/TELECASTING/PUBLISHING/CTRCULATING/FORWARDING/UPLOADING/ Ten NSMETTING/SHARING ANY FALSE, BASELESS, RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE INSTITUTIONS AND AS PRAYED IN IA. 3) TA 3/2023 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC 1a Reliot PRAYS TO PASS AN AD INTERIM EXPARTE INJUNCTION ORDER RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT NO. TO 7 FROM APPROACHING ANY MEDIA PLATFORM/BUBLISHING HOUSE BY MAKING ANY FALSE BASELESS RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE HEAD OF INSTITUTION DR O VEERENDRA HEGGADE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND AS PRAYED IN IA. cAICMO. Register and Putup this case to CCH«_\\ cour: for disposal according to law. — < es PRL. crmicl SESSIONS JUDGE ~ BENGALURU Case is called out. Heard arguments. “~ For Orders. Call on: 19-07-2023 D wl lor C & Sj., Biluruos horas 194-9-43- Q- BS. Torda ans\ AP ORDERS ON IA.Nos. 1 to 3 Heard the arguments of learned advocate for the plaintiff. Perused the records. 2. Plaintiffs have filed I.A.Nos. 1 to 3 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. 3. In LA.No, 1 the plaintiffs have sought for temporary mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees etc., or any persons claiming through or under them to remove/delete the unverified false, baseless, reckless, allegations, mentioned in the schedule Ggreinbetog or in‘ the alternative making further transmitting the videos specified in the schedule against the institution, head of 'the institution and his family members ons OS WS2A\23 4. In LA.No. 2 the plaintiffs have sought for an order of temporary injunction’ restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees etc., or any persons claiming through or under them from making / telecasting/ publishing/ circulating/ forwarding/ uploading/ transmitting/ sharing any false, baseless, reckless allegations against the institution, head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr: D.Veerendra Heggade and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by defendants and grant such other reliefs. 5. In LA.No. 3 the plaintiffs have sought for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from approaching any media platforms/ publishing houses by making’ false, baseless, reckless, allegations against the head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr. D.Veerendra Heggade or his family members or his institutions or organizations or So Nanhonathaesapie sae Dharmasthala by making false, NS JUD, SS S baseless, friyQie Rte allegations in the pretext of ') CC.No. 203/2016 on the fileof the CBI court, Bengaluru and grant such other reliefs. 6. The plaintiffs have sought for main relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/ directing the defendants from posting any defamatory statements against the Padma Vibhushana Dr. D.Veerendra Heggade and also against Sri.Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala and institutions run by it. The background of the present situation as per the arguments of learned advocate: for the plaintiff is that, in the recent past, this City Civil Court (Special Court) has acquitted the accused in Spl. CC.No. 203/2016 vide judgment dated 16-06-2023. One of the materials’ published by the defendants is the imputation against the judges and court function and functioning of other departments of the Government. On the one hand, the right of the defendant's fundamental right of speech and exp ion is there and on the other side theos hort? 7. In the judgment reported in (2002) 5 SCC 760 held between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs Sriman Narayana and Another, at para Nos. 7 to 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled, thus regarding grant or refusal of interim prohibitory injunction and interim mandatory injunction. It geod treats thus; nm 7. It is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the legal proceeding is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the Court. While exercising the discretion the Court normally applies the following tests :- i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; li) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and whether the plaintiff'would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. 8. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken/at a time when the exercisethey are establishéd on evidence at the trial. The relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before which that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolvéd in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies. [See Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Coca Cola Co. & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 544.) 9. In Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors., Cee) 2 SCC 117, this Court, rally to preserve or resigre re\ ae 24 6 $4539 status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2). It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or i BA, Le) sea : TARCUGHON™ ‘BeNGArURY CLY Beg No. 22399 Esp Ds 0qourt to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as a prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such’ injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.” 8, In (2019) 14. SCC 1, Hammad Ahmed Vs Abdul Majeed ‘And Others, at para Nos. 56 to. 59. Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled regarding grant or refusal of interim prohibitory injunction and interim mandatory injunction. It reads thus; “56. The argument that the Appellant is involved in criminal cases is again not relevant at this stage. 1973 Deed provided for disqualification of conviction in criminal case involving moral turpitude. None of the criminal prosecution launched against the Appellant have ended up in conviction, therefore, there is no disqualification attached to the Appellant at this stage.\A 05-4929 |23 58. The ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction. raj vs. State tre Others, this Court held that Court would grant such an interim relief only if it is satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of Justice. Therefore, in appropriate case, ad-interim injunction in mandatory form can be granted. The Court held as under:- “12, Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in hishigher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being 18 (2004) 4 SCC he hea g, and at the 697 perpetuated throughout end the court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shail also have to be seen and the court may f the parties on the date PP fil (tS3 ps hoo of the suit or on the date of passing of the order but cannot direct the parties to do something which was not in existence at the time of filing of the suit, is not a general rule of universal application. The nature of the orders claimetl by the Appellant are not passed ordinarily in a routine manner as the Plaintiff is required to have a case which should be of higher standard than'mere prima facie case. But in view of the agreement between the parties, as recorded by the Division Bench in an earlier round of litigation the primary question was agreed to be that who is to act as Chief Mutawalli. Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has examined such question only. Even, before this Court, the parties have argued primarily on the question as to who shall be Chief ss Mutawalli. Therefore, a prima-facie opinion would lead to consequential order in respect of management of the affairs of the Hamdard’. : 9. Coming to the case on ‘hand prima facie it appears that there is an urgent need to. issue prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from’ making derogatory statementsww Dharmasthala and its institutions before issuing notice against the defendants. It is also necessary to direct the defendants by issuing ad-interim mandatory injunction to delete the already published materials as detailed by the plaintiff in 1.A.No. 2. 10. Issue ad-interim exparte mandatory injunction order against the defendants directing them, their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees etc., or any persons claimin, through or under them to remove/delete the unverified false, baseless, reckless, allegations; mentioned in the schedule or in the alternative making further transmitting the videos specified in the schedule against the institution, head of the institution and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by the defendants, as claimed by the plaintiffs in 1.A.No.:1 /2023 tillo \s 9S ASBH 29 administrators, assignees etc., or any persons claiming through or under them from making/telecasting/publishing/circulating/forwarding/upload ing/transmitting/sharing any false, baseless, reckless allegations against the institution, head of the institution Padma Vibhshana Dr. D.Veerendra Heggade and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by defendants, as claimed by the plaintiffs in LA.No. 2 /2023 till next date of hearing. 12. Issue ad-interim exparte temporary injunction order restraining the deferidanis Nos. 1 to 7 from approaching any "media platforms/ publishing houses by making false, baseless, reckless, allegations against the head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr. D.Veerendra Heggade or his family members or his institutions or organizations or Sri.Manjunathaswamy temple, Dharmasthala by making false, baseless, frivolous, reckless allegations in the pretext of disusing the case relatingYo next date of hearing. 13. The plaintiffs shall comply the order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. 14, Issue suit summons and notice of I.A.Nos. 1 to 3 / 2023 and notice of this order against the defendant Nos. 1 to 61 through court and through RPAD. R/by 04-10-2023. sp PkS > 8 Comgtonce. on 20194 3 " VIACC & SJ., B'LURU CITY ATE & T. OF INDIA 56, Surveyor Street, f «o') Bengaturu-560004 70 Mu 1B (