been litigated upon. There has been no serious contest as to the fact that all the offending videos whose links have been filed at pages 19 to 24 of the documents file are merely summarizing/ paraphrasing extracts of the book itself. Since this has not been factually contested by any of the parties, the Court has not viewed each of the videos. The submissions of the ld. Counsels have been focused on the video whose transcript has been provided in the plaint in paragraph 18(a). The Plaintiff‟s averments in para 18(a) have been rebutted only on the ground that the platforms are intermediaries. There has been no denial of the content of the video as mentioned in paragraph 18(a) of the plaint. Paragraph 18(a) of the Plaint reads as under: “18. That the brief facts necessitating the filing of the present suit are stated herein under: a) That the Plaintiffs in October, 2018 came to know from Plaintiff No. 1‘s followers including the special power of attorney holder and the distributors and officials of Plaintiff No. 2 about uploading/sharing/ dissemination/publication of highly defamatory and malicious videos/URLs/Weblinks against the Plaintiff No. 1 on the portals of the Defendants, based on absolutely false and/or wrong and/or misleading facts/documents/statement thereby insinuating that the Plaintiff No. 1 is responsible for the death of Mr. Rajiv Dixit and his guru Swami Shankar Dev Ji and his colleague Swami Yogananda. That the vilification campaign launched by the Defendants against the Plaintiff No. 1 by allowing the uploading of several videos/URLs/Weblinks are false, frivolous, misconceived and reeks of malafide intentions. The contents of one such video is reproduced herein below: …‖ 33. Thus, the question as to whether there has been defamation or not has CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 31 of 76