IMPHAL: The Court of District Judge, Imphal East has rejected the appeal of IPS Officer Themthing Ngsangva praying for granting ex-parte temporary injunction order for restraining fellow police officer Thounaojam Brinda and other media houses from speaking, publishing or writing any comment or content against him during pendency of the trial.
Hearing of the Miscellaneous civil appeal case no 4 of 2020 filed by IPS Officer Themthing Ngsangva was held on November 13 in the court of District Judge, Imphal East Maibam Manojkumar. The court announced its judgment today. The case was filed against Laimayum Basanta Sharma, publisher The Morning Bell; Rounder Alex, Editor, The Morning Bell; GS Vasu Owner and Publisher New Indian Express; Rajesh Kumar R, Executive Editor New Indian Express; Prasanta Majumdar, Staff Correspondent, New Indian Express; CEO FaceBook; CEO Google; CEO Youtube LLC; as principal respondents and Thounaojam Brinda, Addl SP.
IPS Officer Themthing Ngsangva as an appellant filed the appeal case partly challenging the order passed by the Civil judge (Sr Division Imphal East) on September 9, 2020 arising out of the original suit no 41 of 2020. Themthing filed a case for defamation, damages with mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents. He also filed an application praying for passing ex-parte ad interim temporary injunction order for retraining Brinda (respondent no.9) from making any further unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and further restrained the defendant nos. 2 to 9/ present respondent nos. 1 to 8 and their associates, agents, servants, representatives, the various web links, Social Media Platform, URLs, Websites etc. from further speaking, publishing or writing any defamatory comment or content which is defamatory to the appellant/plaintiff during the pendency of the trial/till the next date of hearing.
The order of the court said, “It will suffice to reject the prayer of appellant for granting ex-parte temporary injunction since he did not take the said plea that the matter is very urgent and the object/purpose of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex-parte order is not passed, as it is the mandatory provision for granting ex-parte temporary injunction under O.39 rule 3 of CPC. Nevertheless, the Trial Court did not reject the prayer of the appellant on the said ground but on the basis of the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal (supra).
Furthermore, on perusing the impugned order, the ld. trial Court fixed 23-09-2020 for written objection and hearing but while reading with para no.6 of the impugned order it seems that the trial court totally rejected the matter of granting temporary injunction in respect of the defendant nos. 2 to 9/respondent nos. 1 to 8. The proper procedures to be followed after rejecting the prayer of ex-parte temporary injunction are to issue notice to the opposite parties, allow the opposite parties to file written statements/objections and hearing both the parties and dispose of the matter as per Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, there is no interference to the impugned order dated 05.09.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn. Imphal East, Manipur) in Judicial Misc. case no. 176 of 2020 arising out of Original Suit no.41 of 2020 since the plaintiff/petitioner/appellant did not fulfil the mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.
The court, however, directed the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Imphal East to dispose of the prayer of the appellant made in Judl. Misc. Case No. 176 of 2020 in respect of all the defendants/respondents after hearing both the parties by giving ample opportunity to the defendants/respondents to file their respective written statements to the plaint and written objection to the application
of granting a temporary injunction.
The parties were directed to appear before the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Imphal East, Manipur on 04-12-2020.