The Bombay High Court has held that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes a special provision conferring jurisdiction on courts without applying the concept of accrual of cause of action and the plaintiff complaining loss of reputation in the local limits of jurisdiction can file and maintain a suit for compensation without seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

The High Court made such observations while considering a Suit for defamation filed by the plaintiff. The issue revolved around the applicability of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in defamation suits filed in original civil jurisdiction of the Court and if leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would be mandatory for institution of such suits where defamatory material originates outside the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court, but Plaintiff’s reputation is hurt within its territorial jurisdiction.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held, “Thus, in my view, Section 19 of the Code makes a special provision conferring jurisdiction on courts without applying the concept of accrual of cause of action, either wholly or in part. Rather the place at which the wrong is felt or suffered, irrespective of place of residence of Plaintiff, would become the determinative factor for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff complaining loss of reputation in the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court can file and maintain a suit for compensation without seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.”

Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat represented the Plaintiff while Advocate Gauraj Shah represented the Defendant.

Factual Background

Plaintiff had filed a Suit alleging defamation by the Defendants. The Plaintiff described himself as the Chairman of Maharashtra State Board of Waqf and also claimed to have held several prestigious positions in various organisations and had earned a reputation for himself. It was averred in the Plaint that the first Defendant is associated with a political party and has a large number of followers on social media platforms. It was alleged that on September 21, 2025, the first Defendant uploaded a video on her Facebook and Instagram accounts containing defamatory content against Plaintiff. It was further alleged that the second defendant had also published videos/posts on his Facebook, Instagram and X accounts containing defamatory content against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff further averred that the Defendants had uploaded and shared the impugned content on online platforms as well as on various other platforms, which were available for access all over the world , including in Mumbai. The Plaintiff had initially filed a Leave Petition seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. However, the Court dealing with the roster of Leave Petition had disposed of the Leave Petition observing that Para 61 thereof contained a pleading that the entire cause of action had arisen in Mumbai.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the High Court has jurisdiction to receive, try and determine suits of every description in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Bench was of the view that the provisions relating to territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would apply only to suits covered by Sections 16,17 and 20 of the Code, application of which to the High Court is expressly excluded under Section 120 of the Code.

As per the Bench, Section 19 of the Code makes a special provision conferring jurisdiction on courts without applying the concept of accrual of cause of action, either wholly or in part. Rather the place at which the wrong is felt or suffered, irrespective of place of residence of Plaintiff, would become the determinative factor for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff complaining loss of reputation in the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court can file and maintain a suit for compensation without seeking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Bench mentioned.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Plaintiff complains of sufferance of loss of reputation on account of impugned contents being made available for reading and viewing at Mumbai and the suit involves alleged wrong to the person of Plaintiff within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court. “Plaintiff therefore has the choice of filing the present suit either before this Court or in court at Pune, within local limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendants reside.In that view of the matter, this Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Since Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has no application, the concept of accrual of whole or part cause of action is irrelevant for deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the present Suit. Therefore, Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has rightly not been sought by the Plaintiff, as the same is unnecessary”, it stated.

Considering that the effect of wrong done at Pune by making and publishing the alleged defamatory statements was allegedly felt and suffered by the Plaintiff at Mumbai, the Bench held that he has the choice of filing the suit either at Mumbai or at Pune, where the Defendants reside. It was thus held that the Plaintiff need not secure leave of the Court for filing of thesuit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. “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”, it ordered.

The Bench granted the Plaintiff leave to further amend the Plaint in terms of the draft amendment tendered in the court and also to delete fourth and sixth Defendants from the array of the parties.

Cause Title: Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi v. Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:19696)

Appearance

Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, Advocates Prathamesh Kamat, Kayush Zaiwalla, Rahul P. Jain, Ishwar Ahuja, Rukshin Ghiara, Yash Dethe, M/s.Alhpa Chambers

Defendant: Advocates Gauraj Shah, Hasnain Kazi, Shraddha Vavhal, Rishabh Jaisani, Harit Lakhani, Richa Bharti, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocates Amishi Sodanim Charu Shukla, Azhar Tamboli

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Sandeep V Marne

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.