Pushpinder Singh vs Rajiv Prasher and others

Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - C.M. No. 14487-C of 2014

Prayer in this application is for making good the deficiency in Court fee.

It has been stated that the deficiency in Court fee has been made good but in doing so, the delay of 132 days had occurred. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed and the Court fee, as made good, is taken on record.

C.M. No. 14488-C of 2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 106 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the clerk of the counsel, the same is allowed. Delay of 106 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.

C.M. No. 380-C of 2016

Prayer in this application is for placing on record the Press Item exhibited before the trial Court as Ex. P/1.

Prayer granted. Press Item exhibited before the trial Court is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

RSA No. 6085 of 2014

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 09.01.2013, whereby the suit for claim of Rs. 10 lacs on account of damages from the defendants for circulating false allegations against the plaintiff and getting printed the news items in the newspaper dated 11.02.2004 on the basis of an affidavit given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 alleging embezzlement of a huge money of the Department of Transport by respondent No. 1-plaintiff, stands decreed to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-defendant No. 1 stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 23.01.2014.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although an FIR No. 35 dated 03.02.2004 registered against the appellant defendant No. 1 in Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib had resulted in his conviction but the appeal against the same is pending, therefore, the findings of the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside. He contends that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that in a vigilance enquiry, which has been held against the departmental officials, apart from the appellant-defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1- plaintiff has also been found to be guilty. Thus, the assertions made in the affidavit, which resulted in the publication of the news item dated 11.02.2004, are not incorrect. He, thus, contends that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside and the suit of the respondents-plaintiff dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments but do not find any merit in the assertions as put forth by him.

Upon notice having been issued on the appellant-defendant No. 1 in the suit, he was proceeded against ex-parte. An application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC was filed by the appellant-defendant No. 1, which was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the revision petition preferred by him in this Court was dismissed. The said order having not been challenged further has attained finality. The proceedings, therefore, continued against the appellant-defendant No. 1 ex-parte. There being no stand of the appellant-defendant No. 1 before the trial Court, the Court has proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the evidence, as has been led by the respondents-plaintiff, according to which, the allegations against the appellant-defendants with regard to the defamation and lowering his reputation in the eyes and estimation of his relatives, friends and society have been duly proved.

The plea of the appellant-defendant No. 1 that in the vigilance enquiry, respondent No. 1-plaintiff has also been found to be guilty along with the other officials including the appellant-defendant No. 1 and, therefore, his allegations are correct, cannot be accepted as there is nothing on record which would support the assertions, as made by the counsel in the absence of any written statement or the evidence in this regard on the records of the case. Respondents No. 2 and 3-defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively, who were the publishers of the news report, have categorically, in their written statement, stated that they had, prior to publication of the news item Ex. P1, got clarification not only from respondent No. 1-plaintiff but also approached the appellant-defendant No. 1 to confirm the allegations, which were mentioned by respondents No. 2 and 3-defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively in the news item, were confirmed by the appellant on phone. The news item, as is apparent, would be defamatory, therefore, the findings, as recorded by the Courts below that due to false allegations as levelled by the appellant against the respondent-plaintiff, his reputation and esteem was lowered not only amongst his employees, relatives, friends but amongst the general public also, cannot be faulted with. The damages, as have been granted to respondent No. 1-plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till actual realisation are also justified and do not call for any interference by this Court.

There being concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on the facts of the case, which have been found to be based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties, there is no illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Further, there is no substantial question of law in the present appeal, which requires consideration of this Court.

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed.