http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  344 of 2002

PETITIONER: Magna Publishers Co. Ltd. & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Shilpa S. Shetty

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.         2.      It appears that vide an interim order dated 12.1.2001,  the High Court granted ad interim injunction and a Division  Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to interfere.

3.      A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:        4.      The respondent filed a suit claiming that she is a film  actress of good standing. Certain articles were published in  the magazine published by the appellants called \021Stardust\022.  A  suit for damages of Rs.20 crores alleging that the articles are  defamatory in nature and would affect her career and for  injunction restraining the appellants from publishing  defamatory articles was filed. Notice of motion for interim  injunction was taken out. Learned Single Judge was of the  prima facie view that the articles deal with the personal life  and are defamatory in nature and granted interim injunction.  The interim injunction reads as follows:  

    "Therefore, as directed in the case of  Indian Express Newspapers (supra), a modified  injunction is hereby granted restraining the  defendants from republishing the three articles  and/or from writing and publishing any  defamatory article in the nature of the three  articles alleging that the plaintiff is having  relationship with other actors or a married  man, which will operate till the disposal of the  suit.\024 5.      The said order dated 12.01.2001, as noted above, was  challenged in appeal.       6.      Before the Division Bench, the stand was that the interim  injunction granted was beyond the prayer made in the notice  of motion. The High Court noted that in notice of motion, the  prayer was in the following terms:              "That pending the hearing and final  disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be  pleased to issue an order and injunction  restraining the defendants from in any way or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

manner carrying our defamatory, allegations  and imputations in future against the  plaintiff".

7.      The Division Bench was of the further view that the  Learned Single Judge had not granted interim protection  beyond what was prayed and was covered by the prayer.  8.      The other stand before the Division Bench was that  moment justification is pleaded, there can be no interim  protection. This plea was also rejected stating that a person  cannot be defamed by allowing such publications in future.  Justification shall be required to be established at the time of  hearing of the suit by leading evidence.       9.      There were certain other stands relating to lack of  pleadings about the reputation and character. The Division  Bench found that also to be without substance. The appeal  was accordingly dismissed.        10.     Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand  taken before the Division Bench. Mr. Bhattacharye, learned  counsel for the respondent supported the order.        11.     We find that the matter relates to an interim order and  while granting leave, the prayer for grant of interim relief was  refused. In other words, interim order passed by learned  Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench continues to be  operative. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the  merits of the case, we think it proper to dispose of the appeal  without interference. We, however, request the High Court to  explore the possibility of early disposal of the suit No.36/2001.

12.     The appeal is disposed of accordingly.