Vijayalakshmi vs R. Vaiyanaperumal and 2 others

A. Ramamurthi, J.—The aggrieved plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition against the order dated 08.01.2002 by the learned

Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit against 3 defendants directing them to pay either jointly or

severally Rs. 1,50,000/= as damages. The plaintiff is the Manager and Secretary of Jayavilas Hindu Elementary School at Manthikulam Village and

it is a reputed institution and is catering to the needs of the Village. It was established around 75 years ago by the grandfather of the plaintiff and it

is run by the plaintiff as Manager cum Secretary. The plaintiff is also functioning as the State Vice President of Mahila Congress. She was to go to

various Government offices in connection with her political and social service activities. The defendants are all living in the same village. The 3rd

defendant is working as a Nutritious Food Scheme Organiser in the plaintiff''s school and he was not allowed to do certain unlawful activities in the

school. 1st and 2nd defendants are friends and relatives of the 3rd defendant. The 2nd defendant tried to get his wife appointed as the Nutritious

Food Scheme Assistant in the School and the plaintiff expressed her inability as the appointing authority is the Block Development Officer.

The defendants have conspired with the intention of defaming the plaintiff and have written a letter to the District Collector, Tuticorin District during

November 2001 falsely alleging that the plaintiff is attempting to transfer one Meenakshi working as the Nutritious Food Scheme Assistant in the

School and is trying to appoint the wife of one Ramasamy @ Rajan in that place by taking Rs. 10,000/= from him. The letter was signed by the 1st

defendant describing himself as the President of the Village Committee. The plaintiff came to know the said letter when she had been to the Office

of the District Collector in November 2001. He had also written letter to the same effect to the Commissioner of Vilathikulam Panchayat Union by

giving copies to the District Collector. The statement given by the 1st defendant is not true and they are making false propaganda in the Village as if

the plaintiff has received Rs. 10,000/= from the said Ramasamy for posting his wife in the school after transferring the said Meenakshi. She had

suffered untold mental agony due to the false defamatory statements made by the defendants. She has been injured in her credit, character and

reputation and lowered down in the estimate of the public. She has filed the suit claiming damages.

The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, gave a finding that the suit cannot be taken to file and struck off the plaint.

Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the court below is proper and correct ?

Point: Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the striking out the plaint by the court below was apparently under a

misconception of law. The plaint disclosed the cause of action. The finding of the court below that the suit is a premature one is incorrect. The

court below also failed to take note of section 35-A of CPC which empowers the trial court to impose cost when it comes to know at the end of

trial that the suit filed by the plaintiff is a vexatious and fraudulent one.

Perusal of the judgment of the court below indicates that a communication was sent to the District Collector and it is pending enquiry. Now,

according to the court below, when the enquiry has not been completed by the District Collector, the present suit filed is premature. The court

below also came to the conclusion as if there was collusion between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. According to the court below, if the District

Collector comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the letter sent by the 1st defendant are true and correct, then the suit will become

infructuous. In my view, the entire approach made by the court below is not proper and correct.

The plaintiff has come forward with a specific case that the 1st defendant had sent a letter to the higher authorities alleging that the plaintiff had

received a sum of Rs. 10,000/= for giving an appointment to one person by transferring another person from the post. The plaintiff had also filed

the copy of the letter sent by the 1st defendant.

Apart from that, the plaintiff had also sent notice to all the defendants and having received the same, none of them had sent any reply. Para 11 of

the plaint relating to cause of action also indicates that the cause of action arose in November 2001 when the defendants sent the letter to the

District Collector containing false and slanderous imputation about the plaintiff. The plaint can be struck off only under the categories mentioned

under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. It has not been invoked by the court below and it is also not a reason that there was no cause

of action to file the suit. Now, in the present suit, the plaintiff has claimed damages for Rs. 1,50,000/= and the burden is only upon her to prove her

reputation has come down in the Society. Now, admittedly, the 1st defendant alone had sent the letter containing defamatory allegations against the

plaintiff. Although the plaintiff contended that defendants 2 and 3 have also conspired, now in the absence of any material, the suit cannot be taken

on file against defendants 2 and 3. However, there is sufficient cause of action to proceed against the 1st defendant.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Mohan Rawale Vs. Damodar Tatyaba alias Dadasaheb and

Others, for the following principle; 9.

A reasonable cause of action is said to mean a cause of action with some chances of success when only the allegations in the pleading are

considered. But so long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the

case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The implications of the liability of the pleadings to be struck out on the

ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action are quite often more known than clearly understood. It does introduce another special

demurrer in a new shape. The failure of the pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars.

The principle in this decision can be made applicable to the case on hand. Hence, I am of the view that the strike out of the plaint is not proper and

correct. There is sufficient cause of action to proceed against the 1st defendant alone and hence the point is answered accordingly.

For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti is directed to take the case on file

against the 1st defendant alone and dispose of the same in accordance with law. So far as defendants 2 and 3 are concerned, the order passed by

the court below is confirmed.