Dr Prikshit, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, while allowing an application filed by Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh, has vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated September 8, which had restrained him from publishing, circulating or making any unverified defamatory content pertaining to the alleged demand for bribe prejudicial to the interests of Gurpreet Kaur, wife of the Chief Minister of Punjab, on social media platforms or through any other medium till further orders.Besides Justice Ranjit Singh, the court in its order dated September 8 had also restrained SAD leader Bikram Singh Majithia and Congress leader Sukhpal Singh Khaira.The order was passed on a suit filed by Dr Gurpreet Kaur seeking damages and injunction.She alleged that the former judge had made unscrupulous allegations against her at a press conference regarding a demand of Rs 5 crore from an accused in a rape case, with the intent to tarnish her image.Charanjit Singh Bakshi, counsel appearing for Justice (Retd) Ranjit Singh, argued that Dr Gurpreet Kaur had made false and misleading averments in the suit and had suppressed true facts.In the press conference held on August 20, the respondent had specifically pointed out that the issue of a Rs 5 crore bribe had been referred to by the high court in its judgment and that these facts were part of the pleadings before the high court. An order passed by the court cannot constitute defamation. Curtailing the rights of a citizen or of Punjab Human Rights Organisation — the applicant being its chairman — amounts to infringement of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, he argued.However, Sukhbir Singh, appearing for Gurpreet Kaur, claimed that the allegations were politically motivated to harm her husband, the Chief Minister of Punjab.After hearing the arguments, the court observed that counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the high court order allegedly read out by Justice Ranjit Singh was a restricted order and was not open to the general public, but Justice Ranjit Singh, in connivance with the other defendants, had willingly and intentionally published it to defame the plaintiff. On this contention, the court found that it is settled law that one who comes to court must come with clean hands, and if the plaintiff herself had suppressed material facts, the conduct of defendant No. 2 becomes irrelevant, as one who seeks equity must do equity.It is evident that the alleged press conference was held about a month after the high court order was passed, and Justice Ranjit Singh, by virtue of his position as president of Punjab Human Rights Organisation, is under an implied duty to watch over human rights violations in the area under his supervision and jurisdiction. Hence, it is a fit case to attract the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC to vacate the injunction granted vide order dated September 8, the court said.The court said the order passed qua Justice Ranjit Singh is vacated; in fact, the existence of cause of action qua Justice Ranjit Singh is to be shown on the next date. Along with the application, no prayer for compensation under Section 95(1)(a) of the CPC has been made; therefore, Justice Ranjit Singh is at liberty to take separate appropriate action for compensation for obtaining an injunction on insufficient grounds against him. Arguments on the maintainability of the suit qua Justice Ranjit Singh will also be heard on the date fixed — October 6 — besides the appearance of all parties and their replies to the stay application.