Delhi District Court
Shri Prem Prakash vs Shri Rampat on 19 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG: CIVIL JUDGE:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No: 85/1/14
Unique case ID No: 02405C0073392014
IN THE MATTER OF
Shri Prem Prakash
S/o Late Shri Ram Lal
R/o RZ4, Ganpati Enclave,
Main Paprawat Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi110043
... Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Rampat
S/o Late Shri Ram Lal
House No.130 Village Goela Khurd,
P O Chhawla,
New Delhi110071
... Defendant
Date of filing : 20.03.2014
Date of Institution : 21.03.2014
Date of pronouncing judgment : 19.01.2016
Civil Suit No.85/1/14
Prem Prakash Vs Rampat
Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 1 of 27
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT FOR
MAKING DEFAMATION FOR RS.THREE LAKHS.
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I will dispose of the present suit of the plaintiff filed by him against his real brother for recovery of compensation on account of defamation/mental tension etc.
2. Brief case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that defendant is his real brother and he had filed a false criminal complaint case bearing no.2018/1/1992 in which the plaintiff and his wife along with other brothers and their wives were summoned in the year 1997. The said case was dismissed on 21.03.2013 and plaintiff along with his brothers and their wives was acquitted of all charges. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has also submitted false complaints dated 08.11.2011, 26.12.2011, 21.12.2011, 01.03.2013, 01.07.2013 and 12.12.2013 and other complaints to the office of plaintiff as well as to police which have been made by the defendant only with intent to lower Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 2 of 27 down the reputation of plaintiff in the eyes of his office colleagues, society, clients and the court. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had spent lot of money on traveling/engaging the advocate and on account of mental tension and torture etc in defending aforesaid case. Thus, he has filed the present suit for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs against the defendant on account of aforesaid defamatory statements, harassment, mental tension and loss of leaves etc. Present suit was filed by plaintiff on 20.03.2014 and subsequently the plaintiff had amended the plaint by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2014. The defendant was summoned by the court on the same date.
3. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant on 03.09.2014 and defendant filed his written statement on 26.09.2014. In his written statement, defendant has taken a stand that the present case of the plaintiff is without any cause Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 3 of 27 of action which has been filed by the plaintiff with an ulterior motive of extorting money from the defendant and to harass him, who even otherwise, is a victim of misdeeds of the plaintiff. It is further his case that present suit of the plaintiff is suffering from vices of waiver, latches, estoppels and acquiescences. According to him, he has rightly submitted all the complaints against the plaintiff in his office as the plaintiff along with Shri Chander Prakash and Shri Laxmi Narain had abused the defendant in filthy language, beaten him up and also threatened him to kill. According to him, the complaints made by him to the office of plaintiff were not to insult the plaintiff but to bring his misdeeds in the knowledge of his officers. It is further the case of defendant that he has not done any wrong by bringing the truth of the plaintiff in the knowledge of his officers and as such, according to him, no question of any apology to be tendered by the defendant arises. The defendant Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 4 of 27 has thus prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with cost.
4. Replication to the written statement of the defendant was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 23.02.2015, wherein plaintiff has once again reiterated all the averments made by him in his plaint and has denied all contrary averments made by defendant in his written statement. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by this court vide order dated 23.02.2015:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action against the defendant? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court?OPD.
3. Whether the criminal complaint no.2018/1/1992 as well as other complaints made by defendant against the plaintiff to the police as well as to the office of the plaintiff have not caused any defamation to the plaintiff and they contain true facts?OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 5 of 27 Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation on account of defamation caused by defendant? OPP.
5. Relief.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff has examined three witnesses in support of his case including himself. He has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his affidavit Ex PW1/1 in evidence along with following documents:
(i) Mark P1: Copy of order dated 21.03.2013 passed in complaint case No.2018/1/1992;
(ii) Mark P2: Complaint dated 08.11.2011 written by the defendant to employer of the plaintiff;
(iii) Mark P3: Complaint dated 26.12.2011 of the defendant to employer of the plaintiff;
(iv) Mark P4: Another complaint dated 21.12.2012 by the defendant to Deputy Commissioner of Police (West District);
(v) Mark P5: Copy of complaint dated 01.07.2013 by defendant to Chairman, Human Rights through Commissioner of Police;
Civil Suit No.85/1/14
Prem Prakash Vs Rampat
Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 6 of 27
(vi) Mark P6: Copy of complaint dated 12.12.2013
by defendant to employer of plaintiff;
7. Shri Chander Prakash and Shri Laxmi Narain, real brothers of plaintiff were examined by plaintiff as PW2 and PW3 respectively in support of his case. They have tendered their affidavits Ex PW2/A and Ex PW3/A in evidence on behalf of plaintiff. All witnesses were duly cross examined by counsel for defendant and were discharged. Though, plaintiff had also moved the application for summoning of witnesses from his office as well as Police Station Chhawla to prove various complaints lodged by the defendant against the plaintiff which according to plaintiff, were defamatory, however, it was submitted by counsel for defendant that defendant will not dispute that he had lodged the complaints Mark P2 to Mark P6 against the plaintiff and that Mark P1 is judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed in complaint case No.2018/1/1992 PS Najafgarh. In fact, Defendant has admitted the aforesaid Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 7 of 27 documents on oath and as such, remaining witnesses were dropped by the plaintiff. Thereafter, on a separate statement of plaintiff, PE was closed vide order dated 06.01.2016. It was submitted by defendant that he does not wish to examine any witness in support of his case and as such evidence of the defendant was also closed on the same day. At joint request of parties, final arguments were also heard on 06.01.2016 itself. My issuewise findings on the issues settled by this court vide order dated 23.02.2015 on the basis of material available on record, in the light of submissions made on behalf of the parties are as follows: .
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action against the defendant? OPD.
8. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the defendant. It is submitted by counsel for defendant that plaintiff has failed to prove on record that several complaints filed by the defendant Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 8 of 27 against the plaintiff including complaint case no.2018/1/1992 were either false or defamatory. He submits that admittedly, the plaintiff has neither challenged the summoning order passed by Ld MM in the complaint case filed by the defendant against him nor, according to him, plaintiff has challenged the order framing charge against him. The aforesaid conduct on the part of plaintiff, according to counsel for defendant, itself shows that the criminal complaint filed by defendant against the plaintiff was absolutely correct. It is further submitted by him that merely because the plaintiff has been acquitted of charges by Ld MM vide judgment dated 21.03.2013, it does not mean that complaint filed by defendant against the plaintiff was either false or defamatory. He submits that in criminal case the plaintiff is required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and merely because the defendant could not discharge the onus to prove his allegations beyond reasonable doubts against the plaintiff will not automatically render the complaint of the Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 9 of 27 defendant false. So far as the allegations of defamatory statements in the aforesaid criminal complaint are concerned, it is submitted by counsel for defendant that cause of action, if any, in respect of allegations leveled in the aforesaid complaint case had arisen way back in the year 1992 and suit of the plaintiff for compensation on account of alleged defamatory statements is accordingly barred by time. It is further submitted by him that complaint made by defendant to the competent authority regarding various misdeeds of the plaintiff with the defendant can not make the defendant liable to pay compensation on account of defamation. Thus, according to him, suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action.
9. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for plaintiff that defendant has failed to discharge his onus to prove that suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action in as much as no evidence whatsoever has been led on behalf of defendant on the aforesaid issue. According to counsel for plaintiff, the plaintiff Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 10 of 27 has specifically alleged in his plaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit that all complaints as alleged by defendant against the plaintiff were not only false but were also defamatory and the aforesaid testimony of plaintiff has remained uncontroverted. He further submits that though the defendant has taken a stand in his written statement that aforesaid complaints contained true facts, however, according to him, the defendant has failed to lead any evidence in support of his aforesaid plea.
10.I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record.
11. In my considered opinion, though the plaintiff has titled the suit as suit for recovery of compensation amount for making defamation/mental tension etc., however, on a meaningful reading of the plaint it is apparent that plaintiff has based his claim on two different causes of action one cause of action emanates from dismissal of the complaint case bearing no. Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 11 of 27 2018/1/1992 by Ld MM, Dwarka Courts vide its judgment dated 21.03.2013 and claim for damages in respect of the same is founded under the law relating to tort of malicious prosecution. Second cause of action, in my considered opinion, is on account of defamatory statements made in the aforesaid complaint case as well as in the subsequent complaints made by the defendant which are dated 08.08.2011, 26.12.2011, 21.12.2012, 01.03.2013, 01.07.2013 and 12.12.2013 respectively.
12.So far as, the suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution is concerned, in my considered opinion, the cause of action for aforesaid claim had arisen on the date of acquittal of the plaintiff by Ld MM on 21.03.2013. As per Article 74 of the Limitation Act, the suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution can be filed within a period of one year from the date of acquittal. The suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, accordingly, is within limitation. So far as the suit for damages on account of defamation is concerned, Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 12 of 27 in my considered opinion, present suit is covered by Article 75 by Limitation Act in as much as compensation is being sought by the plaintiff on account of libel i.e. defamatory statements made in writing in criminal complaint No.2018/1/1992 and the subsequent complaints filed by defendant during 2011 to 2013. As per Article 75 of the Limitation Act, the suit for compensation for libel can be filed within a period of one year from the date when the libel was published and the publication should be to a person other than the plaintiff. Thus, in terms of Article 75 of the Limitation Act, the suit for compensation on account of libel in respect of criminal complaint bearing no. 2018/1/1992 as well as subsequent complaints dated 08.11.2011, 26.12.2011, 21.12.2012 and 01.03.2013 has already become barred by limitation. However, in case, this court comes to a conclusion that the statement contained in complaints dated 01.07.2013 and 12.12.2013 are defamatory, suit for damages in respect of aforesaid complaints would be well within Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 13 of 27 limitation. Thus, I do not find any force in the submissions made by the defendant that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
13.Now in order to succeed in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
(i) that criminal proceedings must have instituted by the defendant;
(ii) that in doing so the defendant had acted without any reasonable and probable cause;
(iii) That the defendant acted maliciously;
(iv) That the criminal proceedings terminated in favour of plaintiff i.e. in his acquittal or discharge and the defendant was unsuccessful.
14. A bare perusal of judgment passed in criminal complaint case no.2018/1/1992 shows that condition nos.1 and 4 are fulfilled. However, plaintiff has failed to either plead or prove the malice on the part of defendant in prosecution of aforesaid complaint case. As per rules of pleadings, the plaintiff was required to Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 14 of 27 give detailed particulars of the alleged malice on the part of defendant in prosecution of complaint case no.2018/1/1992 in the plaint and the said particulars should have been proved by the plaintiff by leading reliable evidence. However, in my considered opinion, a bare perusal of plaint shows that entire plaint is conspicuously silent about alleged malice on the part of defendant in prosecution of the aforesaid case.
15.On a bare perusal of judgment passed by Ld MM further shows that the defendant can not be said to be acting without any reasonable or probable cause in as much as it has been recorded by Ld MM that there was evidence on record that defendant was beaten up by some one. However, plaintiff was acquitted as the defendant had failed to name him at the time of recording of his MLC which according to Ld MM had created reasonable doubt about the case setforth by the defendant. Under the aforesaid circumstances, plaintiff was acquitted by Ld MM. However, it does not mean that in filing the complaint, the defendant had Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 15 of 27 acted without any reasonable and probable cause.
16. Thus, in my considered opinion, in the absence of detailed particulars as to the malice on the part of the defendant in his complaint case, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for claim of damages on account of malicious prosecution.
17. Now coming to the claim of damages on account of publication of libel by the defendant in the form of letters dated 01.07.2013 and 12.12.2013. In Halsbury's laws of England, defamatory statement i.e. libel is defined in the following terms:
"The defamatory statement is a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or riducule or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling Trade or business."
18.Thus, in order to claim a particular statement as defamatory Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 16 of 27 there should be publication to third party and such publication should be of such a nature as is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. Unless the statement is defamatory perse, the same is actionable only on proof of its being of false and defamatory. Defamatory words if written and published constitute a libel and if spoken a slander. Thus in libel, the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form i.e. in writing or otherwise recorded as such drafting, writing books, photographs, caricatures, effigies, or in some other transitory form. In an action for libel plaintiff should prove that the statement in question 1) referred to him 2) is in writing 3) is defamatory and 4) was published by the defendant to third person or persons.
19.In the case in hand, the alleged complaints dated 01.07.2013 and 12.12.2013 are in writing and the statements made therein are Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 17 of 27 undoubtedly referring to the plaintiff and the same were duly published by the defendant to the third person i.e. person other than the plaintiff. Now only issue remains to be decided is whether or not the statements contained in the aforesaid complaints are defamatory or not i.e. whether the same have been made to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society. It has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit that the aforesaid complaints were made by defendant to lower down his reputation in the eyes of his office colleagues and society members. It has further been alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and deposed by him in his affidavit that the statements given in the aforesaid complaints are false and the defendant has failed to tender even an apology for the same.
20. The relevant portion of the complaint dated 12.12.2013 is reproduced herein below: Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 18 of 27 "Inhoney Ham Par Itne Atyachar wa Julam kiye hai, Jo Ki Kisi Atankwadi Ne Kisi Par Na Kiya Ho. Inhone, Ham Par Hamarey Ghar Par Dhadadhad Bumb Wa Goliya Chalai. Baap, Daada Ki Saari Property, Plot, 70 Lakh Rupey, FD, Toom, Jewar, Bartan, Aujar, Machinery, Sab Kuch Yahi Chhotey Teen Bhai Chander Prakash, Prem Prakash or Laxmi Narain Hadap Kar Gaye Kyonki In Do Ki Patni Delhi Police Me Mani Hui Hastiya hai. SI Savita Devi and ASI Rajesh Devi Hai. Chander Prakash Iski Patni SI Savita Devi Aapke office me Hai. Dono Tuition Fees, House Rent Dono Le Rahe Hai. Isi Tarah Prem Prakash or Isti Patni ASI Rajesh Devi Le Rahe Hai Jo Kanoon Ke Khilaf Hai. Ye Duty Par Hajri Lagakar Bahar Ghumte Hai. Inke Paas Bina Licence Hathiyar Bhi Hai."
21. Similar allegations have been levelled by defendant against the plaintiff in his complaint dated 01.07.2013. A bare perusal of the aforesaid statements contained in complaint dated 12.12.2013 and 01.07.2013 shows that the same are perse defamatory in as much as the same shall have the effect to lowering plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking reasonable Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 19 of 27 persons of the society, which in the present case were the officers under whom the plaintiff is working and the police officers. In my considered opinion, the use of words 'atankwadi, attack by bomb and bullets' and plaintiff being in possession of unlicensed arms are perse defamatory. Since the aforesaid statements are perse defamatory, in my considered opinion, plaintiff was not required to examine any person in support of his case in whose opinion the reputation of plaintiff had taken or affected after reading the same. While taking the aforesaid view, I find support from following observation made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Frankfinn Management Consultants VS Mr Subhash Motwani and Another, ILR (2009) II Delhi 158: "29. The statements aforesaid, culled out, undoubtedly are defamatory. The aforesaid imputations undoubtedly are of disparagement of the business and reputation of the entity referred to therein. It has been held in Union Benefit Guarantee Company Ltd. vs. Thakorlal P. Thakor & Ors. AIR 1936 Bombay 114 that even a Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 20 of 27 corporation, as the plaintiff herein is, can complain of defamation and in that case an action at the instance of the insurance company was allowed in respect of a libel which suggested that the company was started and carried on by adventurers who filled their pockets at the costs of ignorant/poor. The Senior counsel for the plaintiff by referring to the text books above quoted has argued that in the case of a libel as compared to a slander, there can be defamation per se and there is no need to examine any person to depose that in his opinion the reputation of the plaintiff fell or was affected. Reliance in this regard is placed on John Thomas vs. Dr.K. Jagdeesan(2001) 6 SCC 30, Sadasiba Panda vs. Bansidhar Sahu AIR 1962 Orissa 115,Cadbury (India) Ltd. vs. Dr. M. C.Saxena 83 (2000) DLT 592 and Shri Ram Singh Batra vs. Smt. Sharan Premi 133 (2006) DLT 126. There is merit in the aforesaid submissions of the senior counsel for the plaintiff. I have already found the contents of the article to be libelous and/or defamatory and I hold that the plaintiff was not required to examine any witness in whose esteem the plaintiff may have fallen."
22. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has been able to prove that the said statements are false by way of uncontroverted testimony of PW1 to PW3. Though, it has been alleged by the defendant in his written statement that statements made in the aforesaid complaint were absolutely correct, however, defendant has Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 21 of 27 failed to examine any witness in support of his aforesaid plea. He himself has failed to step into the witness box in support of his aforesaid plea giving rise to an adverse inference against correctness of his plea. It is submitted by counsel for defendant that an action for libel can not be initiated against the defendant on the basis of aforesaid complaints made by him to the employer of the plaintiff in as much as the defendant had made complaint to competent authority for redressal of his grievances. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of defendant. In my considered opinion, the allegations as to attack on the defendant and his house with the help of bomb and bullets and regarding grabbing of ancestral properties and regarding plaintiff being in possession of Arms without licence can by no stretch of imagination can be said to be acts committed by the plaintiff in discharge of his official duties and as such, sole intention in making the aforesaid complaint to the employer of the plaintiff would have to lower Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 22 of 27 the reputation of plaintiff in the eyes of his colleagues and seniors.
23.As has already been observed, the defendant has failed to examine himself in support of his pleadings that the averments made in the aforesaid complaint were correct. Thus, in my considered opinion, suit of the plaintiff for damages on account of aforesaid defamatory statements contained in complaint dated 12.12.2013 which is Mark P6 and complaint dated 01.07.2013 Mark P5, can not be said to be without any cause of action. Issue is accordingly decided against the defendant. .
ISSUE NO.2:Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court?OPD.
24. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was also upon the defendant.
However, defendant has not only failed to lead any evidence on the aforesaid issue but he has even failed to point out the alleged material facts in his written statement which, according to him, had been concealed by the plaintiff from this court. Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 23 of 27 Issue is accordingly decided against the defendant. .
ISSUE NO.3: Whether the criminal complaint no. 2018/1/1992 as well as other complaints made by defendant against the plaintiff to the police as well as to the office of the plaintiff have not caused any defamation to the plaintiff and they contain true facts?OPD.
25. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was also upon the defendant.
However, as has already been observed, defendant has failed to lead any evidence on the aforesaid issue. Issue is accordingly decided against the defendant. .
ISSUE NO.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation on account of defamation caused by defendant? OPP.
26. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the plaintiff. It has already been observed during discussions under issue no.1 that statement contained in complaint Mark P6 made by the Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 24 of 27 defendant to the employer of the plaintiff is perse defamatory and plaintiff is entitled to damages on account of publication of aforesaid defamatory statement by the defendant to the employer of the plaintiff.
27. A bare perusal of plaint shows that it has been alleged by the plaintiff that defendant has suffered damages of more than Rs. 10 lakhs and he is entitled to claim of damages more than 5 lakhs but the plaintiff is claiming the damages of Rs.3 lakhs only due to financial condition of the defendant. The aforesaid pleadings were once again reaffirmed on oath by the plaintiff by way of affidavit. However, no proof of any special damage has been produced by the plaintiff on record. In my considered opinion, there can not be any standard for determination of quantum of damages on account of loss of reputation since the reputation of a person is invaluable. As such in the absence of proof of any special damage only nominal damages can be Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 25 of 27 awarded in favour of plaintiff. Thus, considering the nature of defamatory statements, conduct of defendant in refusing to tender apology in his written statement and the status of plaintiff who is a Government employee working as Assistant Welder in the Delhi Transport Corporation, in my considered opinion, the claim of the plaintiff for damages to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs is highly exaggerated. In fact, in my considered opinion, the claim of damages by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs was primarily on account of loss suffered by him in defending criminal complaint case no.2018/1/1992. It has already been observed that plaintiff has failed to make out the case for award of damages on account of malicious prosecution and the court has found favour with his claim for damages on account of defamatory statement contained in complaint dated 12.12.2013 and 01.07.2013 only.
28. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, interest of justice would be served by awarding a Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 26 of 27 compensation of Rs.25,000/ in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue is thus partly decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.6: Relief
29.In view of my findings on issue no.1 to 4, defendant is hereby directed to pay damages to the extent of RS.25,000/ to the plaintiff along with cost of the suit as per rules.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Announced in the open court on this 19th day of January, 2016 This judgment consists of TwentySeven signed pages.
(Arun Kumar Garg) Civil Judge(SW)/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/19.01.2016(mk) Civil Suit No.85/1/14 Prem Prakash Vs Rampat Judgment dated 19.01.2016 Page no. 27 of 27