The delay in filing the written statement had led to an order passed Justice P. Velmurugan on April 27, 2022 setting him ex-parte in the civil suit.
Therefore, he could not feign ignorance about the contents of the plaint in order to seek condonation of delay in filing his written statement, it contended.
Stating that he had been set ex-parte lawfully, the television company urged the court to not set aside the 2022 order and also not to condone the delay.
Taking a dig at them, the judge wrote: “There are three plaintiffs in the suit and they are represented by three different counsel.
The first plaintiff alone has filed a counter and other plaintiffs have adopted the said counter.
April 12, 2024 05:46 pm | Updated 05:46 pm IST - CHENNAI
The Madras High Court on April 12 directed YouTuber Maridhas to pay costs of ₹5,000 to TV18 Broadcast Limited as a pre-condition to set aside an order passed by the court on April 27, 2022 setting him ex-parte in a 2020 civil suit seeking damages of ₹1.5 crore for some of his allegedly defamatory videos.
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan made it clear that the costs must be paid to the television company alone, on or before April 25 and reported to the court on April 29, though the civil suit for damages had been filed jointly by it as well as its former Senior Editor M. Gunasekaran and senior anchor Jeeva Sagapthan.
The judge passed the orders while allowing two applications filed by the YouTuber this year urging the court to set aside the 2022 order passed setting him ex-parte and also to take his written statement to the civil suit on filed after condoning a delay of 1,141 days on his part in filing the statement.
Explainging the reason for the delay, the applicant claimed that there was no proper service of suit summons in the case because of frequent change in the counsel representing the television company and that he was also unable to give instructions to his counsel because of the lockdown during COVID-19.
The delay in filing the written statement had led to an order passed Justice P. Velmurugan on April 27, 2022 setting him ex-parte in the civil suit. Hence, he had moved the two applications to set aside the 2022 order as well as to condone the delay of 1,141 days in filing the written statement.
Opposing both the applications, TV18 Broadcast Limited filed a counter affidavit contending that the YouTuber was represented before the court in 2020 itself when interim orders were passed directing the YouTuber to pull down the defamatory videos and also restraining him from publishing further defamatory allegations.
Therefore, he could not feign ignorance about the contents of the plaint in order to seek condonation of delay in filing his written statement, it contended. Stating that he had been set ex-parte lawfully, the television company urged the court to not set aside the 2022 order and also not to condone the delay.
However, observing that setting the YouTuber ex-parte would not give any advantage to the plaintiffs, the judge said, he must be given an opportunity to defend himself in the suit and explain the circumstances under which he had made the allegedly defamatory statements for which damages had been sought.
“No doubt, the defendant had been lax in filing the written statement and a delay had occurred but an opportunity must be given to the defendant to put forth his views on the entire issue raised by the plaintiffs,” the judge wrote while allowing the two applications.
Further, finding that the three plaintiffs, who had filed the suit jointly in 2020, appeared to have some sort of discord at present since they were represented by different counsel, the judge said, it must also bee seen whether all the plaintiffs still wanted to pursue the cause of action or not.
Taking a dig at them, the judge wrote: “There are three plaintiffs in the suit and they are represented by three different counsel. The first plaintiff alone has filed a counter and other plaintiffs have adopted the said counter. Thankfully, they have unity in approach at least in this particular fact.”
He also said: “Considering the peculiar facts of this particular case where the plaintiffs themselves stand divided, I would set aside the ex-parte order and grant permission to the defendant to place his written statement on record which would naturally mean and indicate that the delay is condoned.”
When the YouTuber’s counsel urged the court to spare his client from the requirement of paying costs, the judge rejected his plea and insisted that some minimum amount should be paid. “There must be at least a mosquito bite. After all, the court also has its sanctity,” the judge said.
