Madras High Court
OSA/89/2022 of V.Sabarisan Vs Pollachi V.Jayaraman on 16 October 2026
OSA No. 89 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
OSA No. 89 of 2022 and CMP.No.6591 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA010424342022}
V.Sabarisan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Pollachi V.Jayaraman
2. M.K.Stalin
3. Nakkheeran Gopal
4. S.Arivazhagan
5. M/s.Kalaignar TV Private Limited
Represented by its Director, Having office at No.367/369, Anna Arivalayam, 3rd Floor, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of OS to set aside the Order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in A.No.2854 of 2020 in
C.S.No.124 of 2020 dated 07.03.2022.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Manuraj
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Aravind Srivatsa for R1
Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Manuraj for R2 & R5
Mr.V.Vargees Amal Raja for R3
No appearance for R4
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:04:56 pm )
OSA No. 89 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.03.2022 dismissing the application filed by the appellant to strike out his name (arrayed as the second defendant) in the suit which was originally filed for damages.
2. The suit has been originally filed as against the defendant for the alleged defamatory statement published in one of the vernacular Tamil Murasu as well as other magazines. When the suit was pending, the application was taken out by the second defendant to strike out his name since he is no way connected with Tamil Murasu. The learned Single Judge holding that since the plaintiff has pleaded that the second defendant is also responsible for defamatory statements, it could be decided only in the trial and dismissed the application vide impugned order. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly the second defendant is neither editor nor publisher of Tamil Murasu, whereas, one Ramesh is the editor of Tamil Murasu, hence, would submit that making the appellant as a party is unnecessary and will cause undue prejudice to his other business. Furthermore, he submitted that he is no way connected with any daily and as a matter of right he cannot not be made as a party.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:04:56 pm )
OSA No. 89 of 2022
4. Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that admittedly for Tamil Murasu, now one Ramesh is editor, according to him, his right may be protected to proceed against Tamil Murasu as per law.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
6. In light of the above, now the point arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed to strike out the name of the second defendant is liable to be interfered with?
7. According to appellant/second defendant, he is no way connected with the vernacular daily Tamil Murasu. The suit itself is filed for defamation on the ground that certain defamatory articles have been carried out against the plaintiff. The suit proceeded under the premise that the appellant/second defendant is the editor and publisher of Tamil Murasu. When the list of the publishers and editors was produced before the Court, it would clearly indicate that only Ramesh was the editor. This fact is not disputed by Mr.Arvind Srevatsa, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, once a person is noway connected with the appeal, suing him in our view is unnecessary and causes prejudices. In such view of the matter, as the second defendant is noway connected with Tamil Murasu paper, making him as a defendant is unnecessary and is certainly to be removed. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:04:56 pm )
OSA No. 89 of 2022
petition stands closed. It is well open to the plaintiff to proceed against Tamil Murasu as per law. (N.S.K.,J.) (D.L.,J.) 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:04:56 pm )
OSA No. 89 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND D.LINGESWARAN, J. dhk OSA No. 89 of 2022 16-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:04:56 pm )