O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 14.10.2025

Delivered on : 31.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

OSA.No.326 of 2025

G.Sampathkumar IPS,

C/o. The Office of the Director General of Police,

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. .. Appellant / Applicant /

3

rd

defendant

Vs.

1.Mahendra Singh Dhoni ... 1

st

Respondent /1

st

Respondent /

Plaintiff

2.Zee Media Corporation Limited,

(Zee News Channel),

Essel Studio, FC-19, Sector 16-A,

Noida-201301, Uttarpradesh,

Also at: Alpha Centre, Eagle House,

III Floor, 150 & 151, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

3.Mr.Sudhir Chaudhary,

Editor and Business Head of Zee News Channel,

Zee Media Corporation Limited,

Essen Studio, FC-19, Sector 16-A,

Noida-201301, Uttarpradesh,

Also at: Alpha Centre, Eagle House,

1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

III Floor, 150 & 151, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

4.News Nation Network Pvt. Ltd.,

(News Nation Channel)

Plot No.14, Sector 126,

Noida, Utterpradesh-201 301. ..Respondents /

Defendants

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules

read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.12.2021

passed in Application No.4559 of 2021 in C.S.No.185 / 2014.

For Appellant : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj

For Defendants : Mr.P.R.Raman, Senior Counsel

for Mr.Anupam Raghuram for R1

JUDGMENT

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Unsuccessful 3

rd

defendant has preferred the Original Side Appeal against

the order passed in A.No.4559 of 2021 in C.S.No.185 of 2014 dated 09.12.2021.

2. The 1

st

respondent / plaintiff Mahendra Singh Dhoni has filed a Civil

Suit in C.S.No.185 of 2014 before this Court against Zee Media Corporation

Limited (Zee News Channel) / 1

st

defendant, M/s.Sudhir Chaudhary / 2

nd

defendant, Mr.G.Sampath Kumar IPS / 3

rd

defendant and M/s.News Nation

Network Pvt. Ltd., / 4

th

defendant, seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4,

their associates, sister concerns, agents, representatives,

2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

correspondents, officers, employees and/or any other person entity,

in print or electronic media or via internet or otherwise from

publishing, republishing, carrying out any reports or articles or

telecasts or repeat telecasts or programs or debates or any discussion

or reporting or publishing in any other manner, any other matter of

any kind directly or indirectly pertaining to the alleged report of the

3

rd

defendant or any matter incidental thereto or any other matter

related to the said alleged statement and / or any news content

relating the plaintiff to acts of betting, spot fixing and match fixing

of cricket matches or in any manner insinuating or denigrating the

integrity and honesty of the plaintiff as a cricketer except the

publication or news of the exact judicial order, if any, passed by the

Hon'ble Courts

(b) Damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally for an amount of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- and other consequential reliefs.

3. The defendants have filed their written statement, necessary issues

were framed and the trial was also scheduled to commence on 01.12.2021. At

that stage, the 3

rd

defendant has filed an application in A.No.4559 of 2021 in

C.S.No.185 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC to reject the plaint as there

is no cause of action against the the appellant / 3

rd

defendant.

3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

4. Upon hearing either side, the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide

order dated 09.12.2021, dismissed the application with the following

observations:

“5.1. In this case issues were framed and the trial was

scheduled to commence on 01.12.2021. It appears that this

applicant has suddenly woken up to the existence of a procedural

right to seek rejection of the plaint, perhaps on a belated dawning of

enlightenment, applies for it. Why has he not filed it earlier?

5.2. This now takes this Court to consider the merits of the

averments. The counsel for the applicant required this Court to

appreciate that the 3

rd

defendant, who has been departmentally

proceeded against viz-a-viz the investigation of that which later led

to the cause of action for filing litigation, has been now exonerated.

This may, at best, be a defence in the suit, but still is not worthy of

seeking rejection of the plaint.

6.1. It is essential to remember that the Courts are not guided

by an automated psyche to patronise litigant's irresponsibility in

using or misusing a procedural facility, and to tacitly encourage

laying any procedural obstruction on the road to justice. Courts

have a duty not just to the litigants but to the countrymen. Hence,

the Courts are required to remind themselves constantly that in a

performance audit by the countrymen the Court will stand alone to

defend themselves without a defence for the delay in disposal of

cases and pendency in litigations, unaided by any of the litigants or

their counsel. Courts therefore, has a duty to balance the

procedural right by the countrymen the Court will stand alone to

defend themselves without a defence for the delay in disposal of

cases and pendency in litigations, unaided by any of the litigants or

their counsel. Courts therefore, has a duty to balance the

procedural right of the litigant with its own duty to adjudicate the

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

litigation, ad to keep down the pendency, lest the Court might the

accused of granting judicial patronage for creating delay in justice

dispensation.

6.2. In the backdrop of what is now stated, if this Court were

to entertain this application at this belated hour, it may well become

responsible for the potential delay which is waiting to halt the final

disposal of the suit. Given the hierarchy of Courts through which

this application may be routed, there is a threatening possibility of

this case staying over in the docket of this Court for a couple of

decades even. See: Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and

Others [(2007) 10 SCC 59].

7. If this applicant is keen to have him heard on the contents

of his averments in the affidavit, he may to file his additional

pleadings. Here, the learned counsel for the applicant formed the

Court that this was once attempted when an application was filed in

D.No.23448 of 2021 but that was rejected by this Court, vide its

order dated 08.09.2021. This Court now, recalls the said order and

revives D.No.23448 of 2021, and direct the applicant to represent

the said application along with his additional pleadings within week

from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. It need not be

accompanied by any other application such as the one for

condonation of delay in representing it etc. It is necessary that

procedure is made simple, and fluid within the elastic limits of its

functionality.

8. This application stands dismissed accordingly. The

applicant/3

rd

defendant is required to face the trial.”

Aggrieved over the same, the 3

rd

defendant has preferred this present Original

Side Appeal.

5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

5. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the plaint averments

and clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action against the

appellant / 3

rd

defendant, whereas the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact

that the appellant / 3

rd

defendant is not a commercial entity, but a public officer.

Filing application for the rejection of plaint is a procedural right for legal

remedy available to the appellant / 3

rd

defendant and denial of right by dismising

the application stating that trial was scheduled for 01.12.2021 has done great

injustice to the appellant and it was erroneously assessed the victim as a

perpetrator and vice versa, which is clear violation of the Principles of Natural

Justice and smacked with malice.

6. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1

st

respondent

/ plaintiff would submit that rejection of plaint can be decided by the Court on

the basis of the averments made in the plaint and filing of written statement by

the contesting defendant is not necessary. Whether the plaint discloses any

cause of action and the same has to be decided after going through the

averments made in the plaint and the Court is not required to take into

consideration the defence set up by the defendant in the written statement or

other documents. There are several allegations levelled against the 3

rd

defendant

in the plaint, there is no reason warrants interfere with the order of the learned

Single Judge. The learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff has relied

6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and Others

v. State of Maharashra and others [AIR 2003 SCC 759] to show that Order VII

Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that relevant facts which needs to be looked into for

deciding the application therein or averments made in the plaint. In yet another

judgment in N.Ravindran v. V.Ramachandran [AIR 2011 Madras 136] to show

that whether plaint discloses any cause of action and whether it is barred by any

law, the same has to be decided by looking at the averments contained in the

plaint itself and the Court is not required to take into consideration the defence

set up by the defendants in his written statement or other documents.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire

materials available on record.

8. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of A.No.4559 of 2021 in

C.S.No.185 of 2014, wherein it has been stated that the genesis of the Suit is

based on a news item telecast by the defendants 1 and 2 and the 4

th

defendant

has also joined in tirade against the plaintiff and had gone to the extent of

stating that the plaintiff was summoned by the Tamil Nadu Police. Thus the

cause of action is primarily based on the news item said to have been telecast by

the defendants 1 and 2 and later joined by the 4

th

defendant. The so called news

item has not been telecast from or within the jurisdiction of this Court. None of

the other respondents / defendants are residing or carrying business within the

7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

jurisdiction of this Court and there is no cause of action that would survive

within the jurisdiction of this Court. It has also been stated that the very Suit is

filed on the assumption that the appellant / 3

rd

defendant parted information of

the investigation with the other defendants, these allegations are substantive and

sufficient to file the Suit that too for a claim of damages. The appellant / 3

rd

defendant is a Public Servant as defined under Section 80 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 and he was not given any notice before filing of the above suit

and he had discharged his duties as a Police Officer.

9. It has also been stated that the appellant / 3

rd

defendant was suspended

from service and after detailed enquiry, he was given honourary acquittal on

20.12.2019 by the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption in

C.C.No.9/2015 in CBCID 02/2013, which itself proves that the appellant / 3

rd

defendant is not in any way involved in any activity which is not within his

service rules. It is the duty of the Police Officer to investigate thoroughly to

find out the actual crime that has been committed and hence, he had to conduct

a detailed investigation on various pattern in which the IPL tournaments was

conducted. The appellant / 3

rd

defendant was discharging his duties as a Police

Officer in conducting the enquiry and his Investigation Report are before the

Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Insofar as the

allegations against the appellant / 3

rd

defendant to maintain the cause of action

are wholly on surmises and are not true. The sting operation conducted by the

8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

defendants 1 and 2 has been totally misinterpreted that the appellant / 3

rd

defendant had colluded with the other defendants with an intention to defame

the fair name and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaint does not disclose any

cause of action that would survive against the appellant / 3

rd

defendant and the

cause of action in the present suit are all vague and imaginary.

10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Order VII Rule 11 CPC,

which reads hereunder:

“11.Rejection of Plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following

cases:-

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action ;

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff,

on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time

to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) Where the relief claimes is properly valued, but the plaint

is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on

being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp- paer

within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to

be barred by any law;

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of

Rule 9.

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of

the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp paper shall not be

extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied

that the plaintiff was prevented by any clause of an exceptional

nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite

stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court

and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to

the plaintiff.”

11. It is seen from the plaint that there are specific allegations /

averments levelled against the appellant / 3

rd

defendant in paras 15, 17 and

26. In para 15 it has been stated that the acts of the defendants 1 to 4

tantamount top blatant scandal mongering and are per se defamatory

as they seek to denigrate the plaintiff and destroy his impeccable

reputation in the public estimation. The defendants have failed to abide

by the minimum moral standards of ethics in journalism. In para 17 of

the plaint it has been stated that the whole genesis of the defamatory

materials as aired by the defendants 1, 2 and 4 is the alleged statement

given by the said Kitty in his interrogation to defendant No.3. At any

event, the bits and pieces of the conversation captured by the 1

st

defendant disclose that the 3

rd

defendant neither had the authority to

record any statement nor was any statement of Kitty recorded. What

was sent to higher officials was a note which was not even signed by the

3

rd

defendant, since he could take no responsibility for the contents

thereof. In para 26 of the plaint it has been stated that the conspiracy is

10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

writ large by the fact that now even defendant No.3 stands suspended

due to his relationships with the betting syndicate. It is not known as to

why the other defendants 1, 2 and 4 are not properly reporting the said

incident and showing the same enthusiasm which they displayed in

maligning the plaintiff....”

12. It is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Kusum Ignots v. Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004 (3) CTC 365 (SC) : 2004

(6) SCC 254] wherein it was held as follows:

"6.Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts

which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the

cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has,

however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact

which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in

order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put,

it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the

defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of

action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has

to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case

may be, shall be rejected summarily.

.........

9.Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure

the provisions thereof would not apply to a writ proceedings, the

phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and

Clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this

Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) of CPC shall apply to

the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter

further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded

11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved

before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The

expression material facts is also known as integral facts."

13. While deciding the scope of Order VII Rule 11-A of the Civil

Procedure Code on the issue of a plaint disclosing a cause of action, it has been

held by the Honourable Apex Court in State of Orissa V. Klockner and

Company and others (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 377) as follows:

"25.Now coming to Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19846/95,

this petition is filed against the judgment and order of the High Court

of Orissa at Cuttack in First Appeal No. 14/95 dated 12.5.95. By the

Order under appeal, the High Court has reversed the Order of the

learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar dated 26.3.94, by which the

learned Subordinate Judge accepting an application filed under Order

7 Rule 11 C.P.C., rejected the plaint in title suit No. 231/92 filed by

the first respondent in Special Leave Petition. The learned Single

Judge of the High Court while reversing the Order of the learned

Subordinate Judge observed as follows:-

"In the present case on a fair reading of the petition filed by

defendant No. 1 under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C it is clear that the

case of the applicant is that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file

the suit. It is not specifically pleaded by the applicant that the plaint

does not disclose any cause of action. The learned trial Judge has also

not recorded any specific finding to this effect. From the discussions

in the order it appears that the learned trial Judge has not maintained

the distinction between the plea that there was no cause of action to

the suit and the plea that the plaint does not disclose a cause of

action. No specific reason or ground is stated in the order in support

of the finding that the plaint is to be rejected under Order 7, Rule

11(a). From the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff

12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

has pleaded a cause of action for filing the suit seeking the reliefs

stated in it. That is not to say that the plaintiff has cause of action to

file the suit for the reliefs sought that question is to be determined on

the basis of materials (other than the plaint) which may be produced

by the parties at appropriate stage in the suit. For the limited purpose

of determining the question whether the suit is to be wiped out under

Order 7, Rule 11(1) or not the averments in the plaint are only to be

looked into. The position noted above is also clear from the petition

filed by defendant No. 1 under Order 7, Rule 11 in which the thrust

of the case pleaded is that on the stipulations in the agreement of

20.4.82 the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit seeking any of the

reliefs stated in the plaint."...

On the analysis and discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, it

is my considered view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge

rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C . is

unsustainable and has to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is

allowed and the order dated 26.3.1994 of the Civil Judge (Senior

Division) Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 75 of 1993 is set aside.

There will be no order for costs of this Court."

14. Similarly, the Honourable Apex Court in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd., and

others V. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others. (2006)

3 Supreme Court Cases, 100) has held as follows:

"12.From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be

rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his

written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The

Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it

discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be

rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11

of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of

13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of

the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those

averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which

are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said

purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the

evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in

regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or

of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of

action which requires determination by the court, mere fact that in

the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a

ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the averments

made in the plaint, as has been noticed by us, do disclose the cause

of action and, therefore, the High Court has rightly said that the

powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for

rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants."

15. In Jageshwari Devi and Others V. Shatrughan Ram (2007) 15

Supreme Court Cases 52, it has been held as follows:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have

perused the order of the trial Court and of the High Court. We have

also perused the plaint filed by the respondent herein. The main

ground on which rejection of the plaint was sought was that the

plaint does not disclose a cause of action which is a ground specified

under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC. The trial court on consideration of

the averments in the plaint held, and in our view rightly, that it could

not be held that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. It is

relevant to state that there is a difference between the non-disclosure

of a cause of action and defective cause of action; while the former

comes within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11, the latter is to be decided

during trial of the suit. The contention raised on behalf of the

appellant that the cause of action disclosed is vague and incomplete,

14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

is not a ground for rejection of the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 of

CPC, no exception can be taken to the order."

16. It is well settled that a cause of action would constitute bundle of

facts. It implies a right to sue. There is difference between a non-disclosure of

cause of action and a defective cause of action. There is no difficulty in

appreciating the position of law that an Application under Order 7, Rule 11 of

C.P.C., would govern a case of non-disclosure of a cause of action. However, it

does not govern a defective cause of action. A question as to whether a plaint

deserves a cause of action is a question of fact, which has to be governed on the

basis of the claims made therein in entirety. The Court has to take the

averments as true and then apply its mind as to whether a Plaint discloses a

cause of action or not. Order VII Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that relevant facts

which needed to be looked into for deciding an application for rejection of the

plaint, the contentions raised by the appellant / 3

rd

defendant cannot be

considered in the application filed to reject the plaint.

17. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law, in the case on hand, we

are of the view that on perusal of the averments made in the plaint, there are

several allegations levelled against the appellant / 3

rd

defendant, which are

sufficient enough to disclose the cause of action. The learned Single Judge,

upon consideration of plaint averments, has also rightly dismissed the

application and ordered that the appellant / 3

rd

defendant is required to face the

15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

trial. In the light of the abovesaid pronouncements, we have no hesitation in

holding that the plaint does disclose a cause of action and we find no infirmity

in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference.

18. In the result, this Original Side Appeal stands dismissed, confirming

the order dated 09.12.2021 made in A.No.4599 of 2021 in CS.No.185 of 2014.

No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

31.10.2025

Jvm

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )

O.S.A.No.326 of 2025

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

M.JOTHIRAMAN J.

Jvm

Judgment in

OSA.No.326 of 2025

31.10.2025

17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 01:55:04 pm )