Subhadra Devi vs Kishori Lal

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he set-aside the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. II Kangra.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent (here-in-after referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a suit for damages. It was alleged that he is a retired teacher and had some dispute with one Baldev Singh. He complained to the Gram Panchayat and during the proceedings he was directed to appear before the Gram Panchayat on 5.9.2001. It was alleged that on that day the Petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the Defendant) tore the papers of the Plaintiff and also asked the Chowkidar to evict him from the Panchayat premises. The learned trial Court was swayed by the fact that there was no defamatory statement and there was no allegation that the Defendant had uttered any words against the Plaintiff and hence dismissed the suit. The learned lower Appellate Court held that even if no defamatory words had been uttered the action of the Defendant in tearing up the papers and asking the Plaintiff to be evicted from the Panchayat premises entitled the Plaintiff to claim damages and awarded Rs. 5,000/- as damages.

u/s 100, CPC, a second appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Section 102, CPC specifically provides that no second appeal is maintainable in a suit, value whereof is less than Rs. 25,000/-. The provisions of Section 100 and 102, CPC cannot be circumvented by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An appeal is the creation of a statute and the legislature in its wisdom has decided that a second appeal will not lie in a suit valuation of which is less than 25,000/-. There is no occasion to entertain a CMPMO unless it is shown that there is some illegality involved or there is some perversity in the finding of the learned Trial Court. In the present case, I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. I find that both the judgments are based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore do not call for any interference in this petition.

It is contended by Shri Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that this is a case where interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for since there was no defamatory statement attributable to the Defendant. I am unable to accept this argument. Damages can be claimed on various counts. Defamation is one of them. Damages can also be claimed due to mental torture caused to the Plaintiff by some other person. The Court below has come to a finding of fact that the Defendant while working as Pradhan had torn the papers of the Plaintiff and had evicted him from the Panchayat premises. This by itself is sufficient reason to cause mental torture to the Plaintiff. Damages only to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- have 4 been awarded. Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to circumvent Section 102 of the CPC. Here is a person, who has been awarded only Rs. 5,000/- as damages after two rounds of litigation in two Courts. Even if, I issue notice to him, he will probably spend more in the High Court than the amount which has been awarded in his favour. Therefore, even issuing a notice to Respondent is not called for in this case. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.