Delhi District Court
Shiv Chandra Tiwari vs Ishu Mittal on 29 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV: DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
DLSH010012372018
CS No. 183/2018
In the matter of:-
Memo of Parties
Sh. Shiv Chandra Tiwari
R/o 1/4785-A, Gali No. 10
Balbir Nagar Ext. Shahdara,
Delhi-110032 ....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ishu Mittal
S/o Late Sh. Manoj Mittal
R/o H.No. 1/6097, Gali No. 2,
Rohtash Nagar, Near Tikona Park
Shahdara, Delhi-110092 ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 24.02.2018
Date of final argument : 17.10.2025
Date of judgment : 29.10.2025
Result : Dismissed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE
LAKH ONLY) AS DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION, MENTAL
AND PHYSICAL HARASSMENT
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the civil suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as Damages Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 1 of 27 2025.10.29 16:23:15 +0530 for Defamation, Mental and Physical Harassment, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN NUTSHELL
2. The brief facts of the case, germane to the lis and as culled out from the plaint is that the plaintiff is a businessman, possessing an unblemished character and enjoying a respectable standing in society. He was known to the Late Sh. Manoj Mittal, father of the defendant.
3. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant, over the past several months, has been persistently harassing and defaming him and his family members, particularly his daughter Ms. Sapna Tiwari, by making false and baseless allegations that the plaintiff had misappropriated funds belonging to the defendant's deceased father. These allegations, according to the plaintiff, were disseminated among the residents of his locality and further circulated through social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, thereby causing grave injury to his reputation.
4. It is averred in the plaint that in May 2017, the defendant, accompanied by his mother, visited the plaintiff's residence and began banging on the main entrance gate. During this incident, the defendant allegedly misbehaved with the plaintiff, his wife, and daughter, hurled verbal abuses, and reiterated defamatory accusations in the presence of local residents.
5. It is further averred that the defendant also threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences in the event of non-payment of the alleged dues. This public episode caused serious damage to his social image and dignity. Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 2 of 27 2025.10.29 16:23:23 +0530
6. It is further averred that in June 2017, the defendant sent defamatory messages through social media to the friends of the plaintiff's daughter, again accusing the plaintiff of withholding money owed to him. These messages prompted several of her friends to visit the plaintiff's residence to inquire into the matter, thereby causing embarrassment and distress to the family. A police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff's wife on 04.08.2017 against the defendant in this regard.
7. It is further averred that this harassment continued till January 2018, when the defendant allegedly sent obscene and vulgar messages to the plaintiff and gave further threats to defame his daughter.
8. It is further averred that the circulation of such false and defamatory content has resulted in immense mental agony, social humiliation, and damage to his business and reputation. Legal notice dated 07.02.2018 was served upon the defendant, which elicited no response.
9. Consequently, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as damages for defamation, mental and physical harassment, along with litigation costs and any other relief deemed just and proper by this Court.
SERVICE OF SUMMON TO DEFENDANT
10. Service of summon was duly served upon defendant, resultantly, in order to contest the present suit, defendant filed the written statement.
DEFENCE IN ABBREVIATED/WRITTEN STATEMENT Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 3 of 27 2025.10.29
16:23:30
+0530
11. While filing the written statement, defendant tried to pulverize the present suit and specifically asserted that the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff with the sole intention of evading his financial liability towards the defendant.
12. It is further asserted that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant for a substantial amount, and the suit has been filed to pre-empt any recovery action that the defendant might initiate for reclaiming his hard-earned money.
13. It is further asserted that there existed cordial and friendly relations between the plaintiff and his late father Sh. Manoj Mittal, and they used to visit each other frequently. The father of the defendant passed away on 28.12.2014, at which time, the defendant was approximately 19 years of age.
14. It is further asserted that the plaintiff induced the defendant to invest a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Only) with the assurance of high returns. Acting upon such inducement, the defendant paid Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) to the plaintiff in instalments. However, after receiving the said amount, the plaintiff allegedly began to avoid the defendant.
15. It is further asserted that upon repeated requests for refund, the plaintiff and his wife Smt. Ranjana Tiwari, allegedly assured the defendant that the money would be returned. Despite such promises, the plaintiff allegedly continued to avoid meeting the defendant and began threatening him over the phone with dire consequences.
16. It is further asserted that on 24.03.2017, defendant along Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 4 of 27 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 16:23:39 +0530 with his mother, visited the plaintiff's residence, where they were allegedly abused and threatened by the plaintiff. A written complaint was also lodged by the defendant in the PS Shahdara, on the same day.
17. It is further averred that thereafter, the plaintiff sought one month's time to make the payment but failed to do so. On 30.07.2017, the plaintiff allegedly gave further threats, prompting the defendant to lodge another complaint on 02.08.2017 at the same police station.
18. It is further asserted that the defendant also made a representation dated 15.09.2017 to the Commissioner of Police and other concerned authorities regarding the matter.
19. It is further asserted that the defendant is a young man aged 22 years, residing with his widowed mother and two younger sisters. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff to maintain the present suit.
20. It is further asserted that the present suit suffers from mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as the wife and daughter of the plaintiff, who are allegedly involved in the matter, have not been impleaded. The defendant has denied all averments made in the plaint and has prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
REPLICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFF
21. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein he denied the allegations and assertions made therein and reiterated the contents of his plaint as correct and true. Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 5 of 27 2025.10.29 16:23:48 +0530 FRAMING OF ISSUES
22. After completion of pleadings, following notional issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019: -
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had caused embarrassment to the plaintiff by openly damaging the reputation of the plaintiff and also by way of messages floated in the social media between May 2017 till January, 2018? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that such acts of the defendant amount to defamation for which the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim as damages, as claimed? OPP
3) What relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23. After framing of the issues as above, matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to prove the case, plaintiff stepped into the witness box and examined himself as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. He has also relied upon documents which are as follows: -
S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s)
1. Printout of messages posted on Ex.PW1/1
Facebook and sent on Facebook (Colly.)
messenger by defendant along with
certificate under Section 65B of Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 6 of 27 2025.10.29
16:24:02
+0530
India Evidence Act, however, the
same is not mentioned in the
affidavit
2. Printout of messages sent on Ex. PW1/2
whatsapp by defendant along with (Colly.)
certificate under Section 65B of
India Evidence Act, however, the
same is not mentioned in the
affidavit
3. Legal notice dated 07.02.2018 Ex. PW1/3
4. Original Postal Receipt dated Ex. PW1/4
08.02.2018 and Delivery Report (Colly.)
24. Additionally, plaintiff also examined Smt. Ranjana Tiwari as PW-2 (Wife of the plaintiff). She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A and also relied upon the document i.e. copy of complaint dated 04.08.2017, given to Delhi Women Commissioner and also to SHO PS Shahdara, exhibited as Ex. PW2/1.
25. PW-1 and PW-2 were cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, on the statement of the plaintiff, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide dated 08.04.2025.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
26. In order to demolish the case, as set up by the plaintiff, the defendant stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which has been exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of his written statement, which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 7 of 27 16:24:13 +0530
27. DW-1 was duly cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant. Thereafter, on the statement of the defendant, defendant's evidence was also closed vide dated 21.08.2025.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
28. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is a respectable businessman with an unblemished reputation in society, and the defendant's actions have caused irreparable harm to his social standing, mental peace, and business goodwill.
29. He further contended that the defendant, without any lawful justification, made false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff, accusing him of misappropriating funds belonging to the defendant's late father. These allegations were made not only verbally in public but also circulated through social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, thereby reaching a wider audience and causing public embarrassment to the plaintiff and his family.
30. He further contended that the defendant's conduct in May 2017, when he visited the plaintiff's residence and created a public nuisance by shouting and hurling abuses, was witnessed by local residents, thereby aggravating the damage to the plaintiff's reputation.
31. He further contended that although the names of the individuals who received the defamatory messages were not specifically mentioned in the pleadings or affidavits, the messages themselves were placed on record as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2, Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 8 of 27 2025.10.29 16:25:45 +0530 along with the requisite certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (presently Section 63 of Bharitya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
32. He further contended that the messages were sent from a fake Facebook ID created in the name of one Mahima Kapoor, which was operated by the defendant. The intention behind using a fictitious identity was to malign the plaintiff and his daughter while evading legal consequences.
33. He further contended that the use of a fictitious social media ID in the name of "Mahima Kapoor" was a deliberate attempt by the defendant to conceal his identity while continuing to harass and defame the plaintiff and his family. The defendant's admission of having visited the plaintiff's residence and the sequence of events corroborated by the police complaint lend credibility to the plaintiff's version.
34. He further contended that the defendant failed to rebut the allegations of defamation and harassment in any credible manner. Moreover, the defendant did not produce any independent witness or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of having lent any amount to the plaintiff. The alleged transactions were admittedly made in cash, without any written agreement, receipt, or reflection in the defendant's income tax returns.
35. He further contended that the defendant's identity stands established through the content of the messages themselves. In the screenshots placed on record as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2, the defendant made statement that clearly identify him as the sender. Such self-referential admissions within the messages leave no Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 9 of 27 16:25:54 +0530 room for doubt regarding authorship, and the defendant's subsequent denial is an afterthought aimed at evading liability.
36. He further contended that the plaintiff's wife, examined as PW-2, corroborated the plaintiff's version and also deposed regarding the complaint filed with the Delhi Women Commission and the local police station, which was exhibited as Ex. PW2/1.
37. He further contended that the Court should consider the totality of circumstances and the internal consistency of the plaintiff's evidence, which points to a sustained campaign of defamation by the defendant.
38. He further contended that the defence taken by the defendant was a mere afterthought, concocted to escape liability for the defamatory acts committed by him. At the end, it was prayed that the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as damages for defamation, mental agony, and physical harassment, along with costs of the suit.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
39. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, while opposing the suit, contended that the entire claim of the plaintiff is misconceived, baseless, and not supported by any cogent or reliable evidence.
40. He further contended that the plaintiff is, in fact, indebted to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only), which was advanced by the defendant in good faith under a profit-sharing arrangement. The present suit has been filed Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 10 of 27 2025.10.29 16:26:03 +0530 solely to pre-empt any recovery proceedings that the defendant may initiate for the said amount.
41. He further contended that the plaintiff failed to prove the essential ingredients of defamation. The plaintiff neither named the recipients of the alleged defamatory messages nor examined any independent witness to corroborate the claim that his reputation was harmed.
42. He further contended that both PW-1 and PW-2 admitted during cross-examination that the messages were sent from a Facebook ID in the name of Mahima Kapoor and not from the defendant's personal account. Thus, the identity of the sender remained unproven, and the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was indeed the person behind the said messages.
43. He further contended that the plaintiff did not examine any of the neighbours or recipients of the alleged messages, nor did he produce any technical evidence to link the defendant to the fake ID. In the absence of such evidence, the claim of defamation remains unsubstantiated.
44. With respect to the monetary claim, he further contended that the plaintiff failed to prove any quantifiable loss or damage to his business or reputation. The suit is devoid of merit, suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
45. He further contended that the plaintiff has failed to establish the authorship of the alleged defamatory messages. The messages were purportedly sent from a social media ID in the name of "Mahima Kapoor", and if the defendant truly intended to Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
CS No.183/2018 2025.10.29
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 11 of 27 16:26:11
+0530
defame the plaintiff, there was no reason for him to use a fictitious identity while simultaneously disclosing his own name in the messages. Such conduct is inherently contradictory and casts serious doubt on the plaintiff's allegations.
46. He further contended that the printouts of the alleged messages, exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2, cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence in the absence of a valid certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
47. He further contended that the although the plaintiff claimed to have enclosed such certificate, however, the same has not been filed as per the mandate of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon'ble High Courts in case titled as "Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908" and "Shwetabh Singhal vs M/s J.K. Sons, Through Rajender Kumar Johri & Ors, S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 12210/2025". At the end, he prayed that the present suit may kindly be pleased to dismiss with exemplary costs, as the plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof.
48. I have heard the final argument at length as advanced by Sh. Deepak Thukral and Sh. Dishant Sharma, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff and Sh. Parminder Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant and also carefully, perused the entire material available on record.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD
49. Before proceeding further, it is important to point out the Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
CS No.183/2018 2025.10.29
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 12 of 27 16:26:21
+0530
needle towards the fact that suits such as the present one, are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability.
50. It is relevant herein that, before appreciation of evidence and deciding the issues, the position of law as settled is that the onus of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims on preponderance of probability against the defendant. As per the principles of Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it.
51. Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
52. There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true.
53. The provision of law u/s 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reads as under: -
"119 (1)- Court may presume existence of certain facts. -
The court may presume the existence of any fact which it Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 13 of 27 2025.10.29
16:26:32
+0530
thinks likely to have happened, regards being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relations to the facts of the particular case."
MY ISSUE(S) WISE FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
ISSUE NO. 1: -
Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had caused embarrassment to the plaintiff by openly damaging the reputation of the plaintiff and also by way of messages floated in the social media between May 2017 till January, 2018? OPP AND ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff further proves that such acts of the defendant amount to defamation for which the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim as damages, as claimed? OPP
54. To adjudicate upon the issues framed as above, it is pertinent to observe that issue no. 1 and issue no. 2 are intrinsically interlinked and must be read conjointly. Issue no. 1 pertains to whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant caused embarrassment and reputational harm through public conduct and social media messages between May, 2017 and January, 2018. Issue no. 2, in turn, seeks to determine whether such acts amount to defamation warranting compensatory damages. The factual matrix underlying both issues is common, as the alleged defamatory statements and conduct form the basis of the plaintiff's claim for damages. Establishing the occurrence and nature of the defendant's actions under issue no. 1 is a necessary precursor to determining their legal character and consequences Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 14 of 27 16:26:41 +0530 under issue no. 2. Therefore, the findings on issue no. 1 directly inform and influence the adjudication of issue no. 2, and both issues shall be considered together for a coherent and comprehensive determination of the plaintiff's claim.
55. Before proceedings further, at the very outset, it is imperative to emphasize that every individual is vested with an intrinsic right to reputation, which has been recognized as an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any act that infringes this right is often termed as defamatory. Interestingly, the concept of defamation has been envisaged as an exception to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. It is so because an act of defamation is committed in the course of free exercise of the freedom of speech and expression, when such exercise breaches the permissible limits of speech and transcends from the permissible to the impermissible. To establish any injury or harm to the reputation of a person, whether through spoken or written word, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to demonstrate the fulfillment of the essential elements of defamation. It is necessary to enforce the law of defamation within its strict confines and upon strict fulfilment of the pre-conditions, as any excessive enforcement may have a chilling effect on the cherished freedom of speech and expression. Thus, while dealing with defamation, the Court always treads a cautious path.
56. Civil defamation, though uncodified, in the Indian context is governed by common law principles derived from the English jurisprudence. It refers to a tortious wrong whereby a person makes a false imputation having the tendency to diminish Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 15 of 27 16:26:51 +0530 another's reputation in the estimation of right-minded members of society. The essential constituents of civil defamation may be summarized as follows:
(i) a false statement, whether written (libel) or spoken (slander); and defamatory in nature i.e., it must have the effect of lowering the reputation in the eyes of others (right-thinking members of the society);
(ii) publication of such statement to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(iii) identifiability, i.e., the statement must refer to the plaintiff either expressly or by implication
(iv) Absence of a valid defence such as justification, truth, or privilege.
57. The first essential of civil defamation is the existence of a defamatory statement. The statement must be such that it tends to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or to cause them to be shunned or avoided by society, thereby lowering their moral or intellectual character in public estimation. It is not sufficient that the words are insulting or unkind; they must carry a false and defamatory imputation when viewed through the lens of a reasonable person. Even innuendo, where defamatory meaning is implied, not stated expressly, can satisfy this requirement, provided it would be so understood by those acquainted with the plaintiff's background.
58. The second requirement is publication, which is the act of communicating the defamatory content to at least one person other than the person defamed. It is well established that communication of the fact to a third party is indispensable for a successful civil action. If the statement is made directly and solely Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 16 of 27 16:26:59 +0530 to the plaintiff, the tort of defamation is not complete, as injury to reputation presupposes the perception of others. The nuanced concept of defamation does not take into account the personal perception of the person allegedly defamed; rather, it takes into account the perceptional effect of the statement on others (subjectively addressed as "reasonable man", "reasonable woman" or "right thinking members of the society").
59. The essential nature of publication in cases of defamation has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ruchi Kalra and Ors v. Slowform Media and Ors, CS(OS) 944/2024 DOD 24.03.2025. The Hon'ble Court held that publication is a sine qua non for the tort of defamation, as the actionable wrong arises only upon communication of the defamatory matter to a third party, thereby effectuating injury to the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. It emphasized that mere authorship or printing does not suffice; rather, liability accrues upon the act of making the defamatory content known to others, whether through circulation, dissemination, or authorization. The Hon'ble Court further clarified that jurisdiction vests where the defamatory material is accessed and reputational harm is suffered, and that the tort is consummated only when the defamatory imputation attains public knowledge, thereby giving rise to civil consequences actionable under law. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid read as under: -
"Decoding the ambit of "publication" in defamation
44. Publication of the defamatory statement is an essential element of the cause of action in a suit for damages for defamation. The injury caused by a libel arises from the Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 17 of 27 2025.10.29 16:27:10 +0530 effect produced upon its readers. Publication means the act of making the defamatory statement known to any person or persons other than the plaintiff himself (see Salmond on Torts, page-215, Fourteenth Edition). It is the communication of words or doing the defamatory act in the presence of at least one person other than the person defamed. In the case of Khima Nand v. Emperor 16, it was held as under: - "There can be no offence of defamation unless the defamatory statement is published or communicated to a third party, that is, to a party other than the person defamed."
45. Publication is the act of making known the defamatory matter, after it has been written, to some person other than the person about whom it is written. Liability for a publication arises from participation or authorization. Thus, where a libel is published in a newspaper or book, everyone who has taken part in publishing it, or in procuring its publication, or has submitted material published in it, is prima facie liable (see Gatley, page-234, Eighth Edition). To put it otherwise, an act of publication involves a wide range of 15 (2022) 10 SCC 1.16 1936 SCC OnLine All 307.22 actions and could be done in any manner, however, the elementary test is whether the act complained of has exposed the defamatory matter to any person other than the defamed person.
46. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Frank Finn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani 17 wherein it was held that publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. The relevant extracts of the decision read as under:-
"17. The wrong within the meaning of Section 19 of the CPC in an action for defamation is done by the publication. The defendants are confusing publication in the sense of printing, with publication as in the case of libel. The publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. In this regard also see Aley Ahmed Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 18 of 27 2025.10.29 16:27:19 +0530 Abdi v Tribhuvan Nath Seth 1979 All. LJ 542. If the magazine, as aforesaid, has a circulation at Delhi, then it cannot be said that the wrong would not be done to the plaintiff at Delhi and thus the courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act. A Division Bench in T.N.Seshan v All India Dravida Munnetira Kazahagam 1996 AlHC 4283(AP) has taken the same view. Even If the test of Section 20 of the CPC were to be applied, even then the cause of action in part at least would accrue in Delhi. A Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in The State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries AIR 1975 Bombay 197 has held that the phrase wrong done in Section 19 would clearly take in not only the initial action complained of but its result and effect also and Section19 is wide enough to take in those places where the plaintiff actually suffered the loss because of the alleged wrongful act. It was further held that the court within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused or suffered or sustained, would clearly answer the requirements of Section 19 for the purposes of the suits mentioned therein. I respectfully concur with the said view and unless Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would be defeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya & Ors v Jyotsna Das AIR17 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049.231991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers the effect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relied upon Rashtriya Mahila Kosh v The Dale View 2007 IV AD (Delhi)593 to address the principle of forum non conveniens. With respect, if under the CPC the court has jurisdiction, I find it hard to hold that on the doctrine in international law of forum non conveniens the plaintiff can be nonsuited. I, therefore, decide issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
47. This Court, in the case of Deepak Kumar v. Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd.18, held that it is settled law that defamation takes place because a defamatory statement or article or any other material is published i.e. it comes to Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 19 of 27 16:27:28 +0530 the knowledge of the public and the appellant/plaintiff is brought down in the estimation of the right thinking people of the society. It was further held that publication is a sine qua non with respect to defamatory articles because defamation is only caused when the general public learns about them. 48. Thus, it is crystal clear that publication is an essential requirement for the culmination of defamation."
60. The third essential is identifiability. The defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff expressly or by necessary implication, such that an ordinary, reasonable person acquainted with the plaintiff would understand that the statement pertains to them. The aforenoted essential aligns with the maxim certum est quod certum redid potest i.e., that is certain which can be made certain. It is not necessary that the plaintiff be named; if the description is such that those hearing or reading it can reasonably infer the plaintiff's identity, the requirement is satisfied.
61. Furthermore, the fourth essential element of civil defamation is the absence of a valid legal defence at the time of publication. For a defamatory statement to be actionable, it must not be protected by any recognized defence under law. Among the well-established defences, justification of truth is one which allows the defendant to escape liability by proving that the impugned statement is substantially true. Another defence is fair comment or honest opinion, which applies when the statement pertains to a matter of public interest and is based on true or provably factual premises, even if the opinion itself is critical or severe. Privilege also operates as a bar to liability. Absolute privilege applies in certain protected contexts such as judicial, parliamentary, or quasi-judicial proceedings, while qualified Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 20 of 27 2025.10.29 16:27:36 +0530 privilege covers communications made in good faith pursuant to a legal, moral, or social duty. Additionally, statutory protections or express or implied consent of the plaintiff may also defeat a claim. Where any of these defences are successfully invoked, the defamatory nature of the statement is neutralized in the eyes of the law. Reference can also be made to the latest judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Abhijit Mishra Vs. Wipro Limited, CS(OS) 31/2021, decided on 14.07.2025".
62. Now reverting back to the instant case, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant defamed him and his family, particularly his daughter, by circulating false and derogatory messages through social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, and by creating a public nuisance outside his residence in May 2017. He further alleged that the defendant used a fictitious Facebook ID in the name of "Mahima Kapoor" to disseminate defamatory content, thereby causing mental agony, social humiliation, and damage to the plaintiff's business reputation.
63. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and his wife as PW-2. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he was not present at the time of the alleged May, 2017 incident and that he was informed about the defendant's conduct by his daughter and son. He further admitted that he did not remember the names of the persons to whom the alleged messages were sent and that such names were neither mentioned in his affidavit nor in the plaint. He conceded that the messages were sent from a Facebook ID named "Mahima Kapoor," which he alleged was created by the defendant, but no technical or Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 21 of 27 16:27:46 +0530 forensic evidence was led to establish this claim. He also admitted that no member of the public who allegedly witnessed the May, 2017 incident was examined as a witness.
64. PW-2 corroborated the filing of a police complaint and confirmed that the messages were posted from the ID of "Mahima Kapoor." She admitted that no message was posted from the defendant's personal account and that no neighbour or recipient of the messages was examined in support of the plaintiff's case. She also conceded that she had not disclosed the name of any friend who had informed her daughter about the defamatory content.
65. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW-1, denied all allegations of defamation and harassment. He asserted that he had lent money to the plaintiff in cash over multiple instalments, without any written agreement or documentation. He admitted that he had not initiated any legal proceedings or issued any notice for recovery of the alleged amount. While his claim of financial transactions lacks documentary support, this aspect is not directly relevant to the adjudication of the present issues, which pertain to defamation and harassment.
66. A glaring omission in the plaintiff's evidentiary narrative is the non-examination of his daughter and son, who are alleged to be the primary recipients and observers of the defamatory messages. PW-1 unequivocally stated that it was his children who informed him about the circulation of derogatory content. He also stated that the messages were sent to their friends. Despite this, neither Ms. Sapna Tiwari (daughter of plaintiff) nor Mr. Sagar Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 22 of 27 2025.10.29 16:27:55 +0530 Tiwari (son of plaintiff) was examined as a witness in the present case. Their testimony would have been crucial to establish the factum of receipt, the nature and content of the messages, and the resultant impact on the family's reputation.
67. In a suit for defamation, where publication and perception are central to the cause of action, the absence of testimony from direct recipients or observers severely undermines the plaintiff's case. The non-examination of these material witnesses deprives the Court of the opportunity to assess the credibility of the claim that the defendant's actions caused embarrassment and reputational harm. No explanation has been offered by the plaintiff for withholding the best possible evidence available to him. This omission is not merely procedural but goes to the root of the matter, rendering the claim speculative and unsubstantiated.
68. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant created a public nuisance outside his residence in May 2017, which was witnessed by local residents. However, no neighbour or member of the public was examined to corroborate this assertion. While PW-1 stated that people had gathered during the incident, he conceded that no one was made a witness in the case. The police complaint filed by PW-2 i.e. Ex. PW2/1, though exhibited, does not conclusively establish defamation or harassment in the absence of supporting testimony.
69. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant's conduct caused damage to his business reputation. However, no business records, client testimonies, or financial statements were produced to demonstrate any quantifiable loss. The plaintiff did not lead any Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 23 of 27 2025.10.29 16:28:01 +0530 evidence to show that his business suffered as a result of the alleged defamatory acts. In the absence of such evidence, the claim of reputational harm remains unsubstantiated and speculative.
70. Tested against the essential ingredients of civil defamation, the plaintiff's case fails to meet the requisite legal threshold. Firstly, the existence of a defamatory statement attributable to the defendant has not been proved. The messages were sent from a Facebook ID named "Mahima Kapoor," and no technical evidence has been led to establish that the defendant created or operated this ID. Secondly, the element of publication has not been satisfied. The plaintiff has not named or examined any recipient of the alleged messages, nor has he produced any witness to corroborate the claim of reputational harm. Thirdly, identifiability is lacking, as the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the messages referred to him in a manner as alleged that would be understood by right-thinking members of society. Lastly, the defendant has denied authorship and has not been shown to lack a valid legal defence.
71. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ruchi Kalra and Ors v.
Slowform Media and Ors, (Supra.), reiterated that publication is a sine qua non for the tort of defamation, and that liability arises only upon communication of the defamatory matter to a third party. In the present case, the absence of direct evidence of publication and the failure to examine key witnesses render the claim legally untenable.
72. In light of the foregoing discussion, and upon a meticulous Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 24 of 27 2025.10.29 16:28:09 +0530 appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the legal principles governing civil defamation, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to establish the foundational elements necessary to sustain a claim for defamation. The plaintiff's case, when tested on the anvil of the four essential constituents of civil defamation namely, (i) the existence of a false and defamatory statement, (ii) its publication to a third party, (iii) identifiability of the plaintiff in the said statement, and (iv) absence of a valid legal defence, does not withstand judicial scrutiny.
73. The plaintiff has not led any direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the defendant authored or disseminated the alleged defamatory messages. The messages were admittedly sent from a Facebook ID named "Mahima Kapoor," and no technical or forensic evidence has been adduced to establish that the said ID was created or operated by the defendant. The plaintiff's reliance on hearsay statements from his children, who were not examined as witnesses, further weakens the evidentiary foundation of the claim. The absence of testimony from the alleged recipients of the messages, coupled with the failure to examine any public witness who could corroborate the incident of May, 2017, renders the allegation of reputational harm speculative and unsubstantiated.
74. Moreover, the plaintiff has not demonstrated any quantifiable injury to his business or social standing. No financial records, client statements, or third-party affirmations have been placed on record to show that the alleged defamatory conduct resulted in tangible loss or damage. The plaintiff's assertions, though serious in tone, remain unsupported by admissible and Digitally signed by GAURAV CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 25 of 27 16:28:17 +0530 credible evidence.
75. This Court is also constrained to observe that the plaintiff, despite having the opportunity, did not examine his daughter and son who were central to the narrative and allegedly privy to the defamatory messages. Their non-examination, without any explanation, amounts to withholding the best possible evidence and invites an adverse inference under the principles of evidence law. In suits of this nature, where the cause of action is rooted in personal injury to reputation and hinges on the perception of third parties, the testimony of primary witnesses is indispensable. The omission to produce such witnesses not only dilutes the plaintiff's case but also casts doubt on the authenticity of the allegations.
76. In view of the cumulative deficiencies in the plaintiff's case both factual and evidentiary, this Court finds no merit in the claim for damages on account of defamation, mental agony, or physical harassment. The suit appears to be premised more on conjecture than on demonstrable injury, and fails to meet the threshold required for civil liability. Accordingly, issue no(s). 1 and 2 are answered in the negative and decided against the plaintiff. The defendant is held not liable for the claims made in the suit.
ISSUE NO.3: -
What Relief
77. Upon a holistic consideration of the evidence led and the findings returned on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, it becomes evident that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The plaintiff has Digitally signed by CS No.183/2018 GAURAV Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 26 of 27 GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 16:28:25 +0530 miserably failed to establish that the defendant authored or disseminated any defamatory content, nor has he demonstrated any tangible injury to his reputation, dignity, or commercial standing. The allegations, though grave in tone, remain unsupported by reliable, cogent, and corroborative material.
78. In view thereof, this Court finds no legal or factual basis to grant any relief to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit stands dismissed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
79. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
80. Application, if any, pending on record is also disposed of accordingly.
81. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed(Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and by GAURAV Date: pronounced in open court on 29.10.2025). GAURAV 2025.10.29 16:28:31 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI Certified that this judgment contains 27 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.10.29 16:28:38 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI CS No.183/2018 Shiv Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sh. Ishu Mittal Page No. 27 of 27