In paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner states that he accepts the publica tion of the allegations companyplained of by the respondent.
On account of this background, companytends the petitioner, he was able to understand, analyse and expose the details of the respondents various acts of companyruption, favouritism and nepotism companymitted during his tenure as Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, at the Press Conference of January 10, 1989.
The allegation in the plaint is that the petitioner levelled several accusations against the respondent at the said Press Conference which were widely circulated reported in the newspapers of January 11, 1989.
The petitioner, however, companytends that the most appro priate place for the trial of the suit filed by the respond ent is the State of Karnataka where the various acts company plained of were companymitted by the respondent from time to time during his tenure as the Chief Minister of the State.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition Civil No 338 of 1989.
It is thus seen that the factum of publication of the allega tions is number in dispute.
Under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .
M. Tarkunde, P.K. Dey and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the Respondent.
Petitioner in person.
It is also alleged that the petitioner had also issued a written statement companytain ing allegations set out in clauses q to y of paragraph 5 of the plaint and followed it up by further similar allega tions made on January 12, 1989 and January 27, 1989, all of which are per se defamatory.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, the defendant in Suit No.
945/89 pending on the original side of the Bombay High Court, has filed this petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 The Code hereafter read with Order XXXVI B of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, praying for the transfer of the aforesaid suit from the Bombay High Court to any Civil Court in Karnataka, preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore, on the ground of forum number conven ience.
The respondent Shri Ramakrishna Hegde has filed the aforesaid suit in the Bombay High Court claiming a sum of Rupees one crore by way of damages for injury caused to his reputation by the publication imputation of certain alleged defamatory statements made by the petitioner at a Press Conference held in New Delhi on January 10, 1989 which was attended by several members of the Press and media specially invited to the said Conference.
These allegations have been catalogued in clauses a to p of paragraph 4 of the plaint.
