Leave Under Clause 12 Of Letters Patent Not Required For Defamation Suits Filed Under Section 19 CPC: Bombay High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a defamation suit filed in the Court’s original civil jurisdiction does not require leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent when it concerns compensation for wrongs done to a person, as governed by Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court explained that Clause 12 governs only those categories of suits covered by Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the CPC, which are expressly excluded from application to the High Court under Section 120. The judgment arose from a case concerning alleged defamatory statements circulated online, where the Court concluded that jurisdiction exists where the reputational harm is suffered.
The matter originated from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, who described himself as the Chairman of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, alleging defamation by two individuals associated with political and social activities. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants had published and circulated videos, posts, and statements on various social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and X, as well as in newspapers, television broadcasts, and YouTube, which contained imputations affecting his reputation. It was alleged that one of the defendants held a press conference in Aurangabad making statements of a defamatory nature concerning the plaintiff’s official conduct and integrity.
The plaintiff contended that the defamatory material was accessible globally, including within Mumbai, where he maintains an office in his capacity as Chairman of the Board. Based on this, he claimed that the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court’s ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The defendants objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff resided in Aurangabad, while the defendants were based in Pune, and that the alleged defamatory acts occurred outside Mumbai. They maintained that any reputational harm, if caused, would have occurred where the plaintiff resides and not in Mumbai. They further argued that, even if a part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was mandatory for instituting the suit.
The plaintiff’s counsel relied on Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the provision permits filing a suit either at the place where the wrong was committed or where it was suffered. He further pointed to Section 120 CPC, emphasizing that only Sections 16, 17, and 20 are excluded from application to the High Court, while Section 19 continues to apply. Both sides cited precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts to support their interpretations.
The Court recorded that the central issue was “whether Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would govern defamation suits filed in original civil jurisdiction of this Court and whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would be mandatory...” It stated that Section 19 governs suits for compensation for wrongs to the person or movable property, and that Section 120 of the Code expressly excludes only Sections 16, 17, and 20 from applying to the High Court on its original civil side. The Court observed that “applicability of Section 19…has not been excluded.”
It examined Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and stated that it applies to two classes of suits: suits relating to land or immovable property, and “in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen…” The Court stated that, unlike Sections 16–17 and 20, Section 19 forms a distinct category that the legislature deliberately retained.
The Court further observed that in Section 19, “the phrase ‘the cause of action, wholly or in part’ has not been used” and that jurisdiction is determined by the place where the wrong is done or where its effect is felt. It quoted the judgment in Sarvodaya Industries, which stated that “the phrase ‘wrong done’ is not used in any narrow sense but has to be understood in all its amplitude…” and that the provision “takes in both cause and effect.”
The Court stated that Section 19 is “a special provision…with the objective of conferring jurisdiction on the court where the wrong is suffered.” It held that if Clause 12 were applied to such suits, “the special provision of Section 19…would stand excluded,” which would defeat legislative intent.
The Court recorded: “the place at which the wrong is felt or suffered…would become the determinative factor for deciding the issue of jurisdiction.”
Upon examining the plaint, the Court observed that the plaintiff “complains of sufferance of loss of reputation on account of impugned contents being made available…at Mumbai.” Thus the suit involved “alleged wrong to the person of Plaintiff within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court.”
It further recorded that publication on the internet and social media is accessible at multiple locations, noting the Delhi High Court’s view that telecasts or online publications reaching a pan-Indian audience confer jurisdiction where the impact occurs.
The Court concluded that since Clause 12 was inapplicable, “the concept of accrual of whole or part cause of action is irrelevant.”
The Court recorded that “Plaintiff need not secure leave of this Court for filing of the present suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.” It held that “The Suit is held to be within jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Code. The objection of jurisdiction raised on behalf of Defendant No.1 is accordingly rejected.”
The Court directed that the Interim Application be listed “for consideration of further ad-interim injunction on 3 November 2025” and “Ad-interim injunction granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing. Plaintiff is granted leave to further amend the Plaint… and also to delete Defendant Nos. 4 and 6… Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla, Mr. Rahul P. Jain, Mr. Ishwar Ahuja, Ms. Rukshin Ghiara and Mr. Yash Dethe i/b M/s. Alpha Chambers.
For the Defendants: Mr. Gauraj Shah, Mr. Hasnain Kazi with Ms. Shraddha Vavhal, Mr. Rishabh Jaisani with Mr. Harit Lakhani and Ms. Richa Bharti i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Ms. Amishi Sodani i/b Ms. Charu Shukla.
Case Title: Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi v. Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:19696
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 31487 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 31483 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
