Karnataka High Court Vacates Temporary Injunction Restraining IPS Officer Roopa Moudgil From Circulating Defamatory Content Against IAS Rohini Sindhuri

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday vacated the temporary injunction order passed by a Civil court in Bengaluru, restraining IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil from publishing any defamatory content against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri.

A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar allowed the petition filed by Moudgil questioning the order dated March 7, by which the trial court had extended the life of injunction order.

The two Karnataka bureaucrats recently had indulged in publicized tussle on social media. The government has transferred both of them from their present positions without showing postings.

Sindhuri had approached the court seeking Rs. 1 crore damages after Moudgil shared her private photos on social media, claiming that the former had violated service conduct rules by sharing such photos with male IAS officers. Later, in a public spat, Moudgil also levelled corruption allegations against Sindhuri.

In a suit filed by Sindhuri in February this year, the civil court had restrained Moudgil and 59 other media outlets including Google and Meta platforms, from publishing any defamatory content against Sindhuri.

Before the High Court, Advocate Madhukar Deshpande appearing for Moudgil said that Sindhuri did not send intimation of ex-parte temporary injunction order, copy of the plaint, copy of the documents and copy of the interlocutory applications to Moudgil and therefore, did not comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which requires the applicant to-

"(a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with-

(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;

(ii) a copy of the plaint; and

(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and

(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent."

Moudgil said that the civil court had in its order made it clear that temporary injunction is subject to Sidhuri complying with the above said procedure.

It is claimed that Sindhuri's advocate filed a "false" compliance affidavit and that Moudgil did not receive any intimation in compliance of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

In this backdrop, Moudgil argued that the temporary injunction has not come into effect at all and there is no question of extending the same against her. It was argued that the impugned order extended a temporary injunction order that was "never in existence" as against her.

“Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code is mandatory in character. Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC attracts the principle that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all,” it was said.

Caset Title: Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANR

Case No: WP 5814/2023.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147

Date of Order: 11-04-2023

Appearance: Advocate Madhukhar Deshpande for petitoner.