Prem Peyara vs Kamla Sinha Alias Kamala Prem and Another

Manmohan Singh, J.—By this order, I propose to decide the application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with

Section 151 CPC on the ground of limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 21 Lac

along with interest @ 12% per annum towards damages and compensation on defamatory grounds against the defendants, on the reason that some

defamatory imputations were made by the defendants in their written statement dated 17th January, 2005 filed by them in Civil Suit No. 403 of

2004. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed for want of court fee. According to the statement made in the present suit, the said imputations

against the plaintiff made in the written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 403/2004 were totally false. It is stated that since the same defamatory

imputations made by the defendants are repeated/republished by the defendants in the Court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, M.M., Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

on 8th March, 2011 and 21st July, 2011 in criminal complaint filed by him titled as Prem Peyara vs. Kamla Sinha @ Kamla Prem, therefore, a

fresh cause of action has arisen in his favour. Thus, the present suit is maintainable as the same has been filed within the period of limitation of one

year under the said Article.

The plaintiff has not denied the fact that when the said alleged imputations were made by the defendants in their written statement dated 17th

January, 2005, no suit for damages within one year was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that

since the said imputations are repeated by the defendants in the ongoing cross-examination of the plaintiff during trial proceedings in the same

Court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, M.M., and which were referred on 8th March, 2011 and 21st July, 2011 when DW Mukesh Kumar was examined in

chief by defendant No. 1, therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit within his rights.

In the present case, the right to seek the claim of damages/ compensation admittedly accrued to the plaintiff on 17th January, 2005. Article 75

of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides limitation of one year when the libel is published. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, by

referring the same imputations in the cross-examination the same amount to republishing the same, thus the suit is maintainable. In support of his

submissions, the following judgments are referred by the learned counsel for the plaintiff:-

(i) Harbhajan Singh vs. The State of Punjab, reported in 1961 (1) Crl.L.J. 710

(ii) Kedutso Kafpo Vs. Keneingulie,

(iii) Mr. Umar Abid Khan and Others Vs. Vincy Gonsalves Alias Vincent Gonsalves, Mr. Chandrakant Ghorpade, Group Editor of ""Gomantak

Marathi Daily, Mr. Jayant Sambhaji, Executive Editor of ""Gomantak"" Marathi Daily and Gomantak (Pvt.) Ltd.,

(iv) ""Truth"" (N.Z.) Ltd. vs. Philiph North Holloway, reported in (1960) 1 WLR 997

As far as the proposition of law as referred by the defendants is concerned, there is no dispute that every republication of a libel is a new libel

and each publisher is answerable for his act to the same extent as if calumny originated from him. The publisher of a libel is clearly responsible

irrespective of the fact whether he is the originator of the libel. However, the facts in the present case are different, as it is the admitted position that

the plaintiff in the plaint has himself admitted that the defamatory imputations made by the defendants in their written statement dated 17th January,

2005 filed by them in Civil Suit No. 403/2004, no suit was filed by the plaintiff as provided under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which

provides the limitation for one year.

I do not agree with the contention of the plaintiff that a fresh cause of action has arisen when defendant No. 1 in the cross-examination of the

plaintiff during the trial proceedings referred the said imputations or confronted the same when DW Mukesh Kumar was examined in chief by

defendant No. 1. A mere reference of said imputations in the proceeding for the purpose of evidence or reference in order to prove the case by

the party does not amount to republishing the same and no advantage of limitation to file the suit libel under the said circumstance can be given to

the party, otherwise there would be no end of period of limitation. In case, the plaintiff had any grievance about the alleged imputations made by

the defendants in the written statement dated 17th January, 2005, the right of the plaintiff was accrued on the said date itself. No suit was filed by

the plaintiff within the time provided under the said article which could have been filed till 16th January, 2006. However, the present case has been

filed in the year 2011 which is clearly barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, the application of the defendants is allowed. The plaint is

liable to be rejected being barred by limitation.

CS (OS) No. 2263/2011

Since the I.A. No. 5107/2012 filed by the defendants has been allowed, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed under the provisions of Order VII,

Rule 11(d) CPC being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.