Anant Ram Sharma vs Ramesh Singh

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1.The plaintiff's suit, for rendition of a decree, for damages, comprised in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, arising from the defendant's libel, stood dismissed by

the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the defendant, the latter Court allowed his appeal

besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. Hence the instant appeal by the aggrieved defendant.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit of the plaintiff was for a claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of libel. The defendant lodged a

complaint with police station Ghumarwin, alleging that the plaintiff was misusing government vehicle for his personal use, for carrying sand from river.

On this complaint, police registered a case and carried out investigation at plaintiff's village Panthera and also at Saproon (Solan). The plaintiff was put

to harassment and suffered in reputation. On investigation, the complaint was found to be false.

The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, the defendant took the plea that the investigation was not properly made and

that the complaint was in fact true.

The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re- affirmed

and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-

Whether the plaintiff is entilted for the recovery of the suit amount, as claimed?OPP.

Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged?OPD.

Relief.

On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In

an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and,

reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in

its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 28.02.2005, this Court, admitted

the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter

extracted substantial question of law:-

Whether the judgment of Distt. Judge reversing he judgment of the trial Court and awarding Rs.1 lakh as damages is perverse, based on misreading

of oral and documentary Evidence, particularly the complaint Ex.PW6/A and document Ex.PW6/B to Ex.PW6/F, Ex. DA and statements of PW-1,

PW-2, PW-6 and DW- 1 and DW-2?

Substantial question of Law No.1:

The plaintiff's suit for damages, arising, from the defendant circulating libelous material, libelous scribing(s) whereof is comprised in Ex.PW-6/A, is

contended by the learned counsel appearing, for the defendant/appellant herein, to stand inaptly decreed by the learned first Appellate Court. In

making the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing, for the defendant/appellant, has contended that with Ex.PW6/A, not, carrying therein,

the name of the plaintiff, hence, the impugned judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned first Appellate Court, thereupon is rendered legally

frail. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot, gather any weight, given Ex. P-1 along with the documents appended therewith, clearly bespeaking

(a) of plaintiff Ramesh Kumar, being the driver of the vehicle bearing number HP-14-2779, (b) the recitals aforesaid, carrying conclusivity, for want of

cogent evidence in rebuttal thereto, being adduced by the defendant/appellant herein. Furthermore, the trite factum of Ex.PW6/A, squarely

appertaining to the plaintiff, is clinched by the factum, of the defendant while meteing reply to paragraph No.3 of the plaintiff, his rather pleading an

admission, of the apposite vehicle being, at the relevant time, hence used for personal use, by the plaintiff. The effect of the pleaded admission,

comprised in paragraph No.3 of the written statement, is, of the defendant rather hence pleading the apposite defence vis-a-vis the tort of libel, hence

being embodied in truth. However, the apposite defence reared by the defendant vis-a-vis the commissions, of, tort of libel, is bereft of credence, given

(a) the investigating Officer concerned after holding investigations vis-a-vis FIR No. 37/96, his instituting a closure report. (b) The effect of the

Investigating Officer concerned, instituting a closure report, subsequent to his holding investigations vis-a-vis the apposite FIR, is, of the allegations

constituted therein, directly appertaining to the plaintiff, being both false and contrived. The aforesaid inference is strengthened, by the factum of no

material, being placed on record, by the defendant/appellant herein, with a clear display therein, of the closure report, borne in Ex.P-1, standing not

accepted by the learned Magistrate concerned, or upon the closure report being accepted by the learned Magistrate concerned, the defendant

preferring a revision therefrom, before the revisional Court concerned, wherein, rather dis concurrent thereto findings stand borne. The omissions of

the defendant, to adduce the aforesaid evidence, constrain a conclusion, of the libelous material reflected in Ex.P-1, and, its appertaining vis-a-vis the

plaintiff, hence not carrying any iota of substance or truth. Reiteratedly, the defence espoused, by the defendant/appellant herein, of all, the allegations

constituted in Ex.PW-6/A being truthful, are, amenable for being discountenanced by this Court, (a) given, for the reason ascribed hereinabove, the

scribed defamatory imputations reared therein, by the defendant vis-a-vis the plaintiff, being omitted, to be concerted, to be holding truth, (b) and, with

obviously, during the course of Investigations being carried by the Investigating Officer vis-a-vis the apposite FIR, the scribed defamatory imputations

gained publicity, and, in consequence thereof, the esteem and reputation, in society of the plaintiff, was diminished, (c) thereupon, the awarding of

damages, for, commission of proven libel by the plaintiff, cannot be construed to be wanting, in any infirmity, arising, from discarding of the apposite

material on record by the learned Appellate Court, or its bringing into consideration, any inapposite material.

Be that as it may, the calibration, of, monetary damages by the plaintiff arising, from, circulation of proven libelous material, whereupon, his

reputation and esteem in society, hence stood reduced, is also not wanting, given its not being established to be grooved, upon, inapposite legal

principle(s), more so, when the plaintiff has restricted, his, claim for monetary damages, only in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being based upon a proper and mature

appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material

from consideration. Substantial questions of law No.1 answered in favour of the respondent, and, against the appellant.

In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree rendered

by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal/Case No. 17FT/13 of 2004/2002, on 23.8.2004 is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be

prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.