Delhi District Court
Sh. Anil Kumar vs ) Ms. Sangeeta Grover on 30 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA - 21/2014
Unique I. D. No. 02401C0532482014
Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Sh. R.D. Kathuria,
R/o 7034/3, Rameshwari Nehru Nagar,
Near Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005.
......Appellant
Versus
1) Ms. Sangeeta Grover,
W/o Sh. Sanjay Grover,
R/o 28/135, Ground Floor,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi110008.
2) Sh. Sanjay Grover,
S/o Late Sh. C.B. Grover,
R/o 28/135, Ground Floor,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi110008.
RCA21/2014
Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 1 of 15
3) Sh. Anil Sharma,
Advocate, X13, Civil Wing,
Lawyers Chambers, Tis Hazari,
Delhi110054.
.......Respondents
Date of institution of appeal : 28.10.2014
Date of concluding of arguments : 18.05.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.05.2015
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned decree and judgment dated 22.09.2014 of Ld. Civil Judge11 (Central), whereby the Civil Suit No. 206/13, titled "Anil Kumar Kathuria Vs. Sangita Grover & Ors." of the appellant/plaintiff filed for damages for civil defamation had been dismissed.
2. The aforesaid civil suit was filed by 56 years aged appellant/plaintiff having 27 years experience of Chartered Accountancy, who was practicing advocate since 2009 and pursuing and handling cases of one of his client named Ms. Seema Grover Seth. Earlier, in the due course of profession of his accountancy, the appellant/plaintiff had been RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 2 of 15 filing Income Tax Returns of late Sh. Chander Bhan Grover and late Smt. Ram Devi Grover, the parents of Ms. Seema Grover Seth as well as for respondents no1 and 2. Appellant/plaintiff felt aggrieved of the following averments of reply filed by respondents/defendants no1 and 2 through respondent/ defendant no3/Advocate in IA No. 13888/2010, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) of the respondents/ defendants no1 and 2 filed in the Hon'ble High Court;
"and the plaintiff out of frustration being guided of her mentor with whom she is involved is making all possible attempts to usurp the property and the said mentor of the plaintiff was also the Chartered Accountant of the Defendant No.1 and his father."
"a qualified enough to sustain her existence and further more, she in working with M/s Anil Kathuria and is gainfully employed."
Appellant/plaintiff alleged that the aforesaid reply to IA No. 13888/2010 was sent by respondents/defendants to Ms. Seema Grover Seth on 24.12.2010 and said reply was filed in Delhi High Court on RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 3 of 15 18.01.2011 and since it contained the above elicited averments, which were completely outrageous, egregiously false and wholly indefensible slander and have inflicted grave, incalculable and irreparable damage to the reputation, character and credibility of the appellant/plaintiff and maligned him. Consequently, appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in question with the prayer to grant damages @ Rs. 25,000/ per month with effect from the month of December 2011 payable by respondents/defendants to appellant/plaintiff till the decree.
3. Respondents/defendants appeared and filed written statements contesting the case on technical objections but could not specifically deny the existence of afore elicited reply containing the elicited pleading or the factum of sending the same to said Ms. Seema Grover Seth or the factum of filing the same in the High Court of Delhi.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 19.03.2012 by the trial court : RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 4 of 15 ISSUES
1)Whether the defendants are guilty of defamation of the plaintiff? OPP
2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages for defamation, if so, to what amount? OPP
3)Relief.
5. Appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex PW1/A and relied upon documents i.e., (i) certified copy of the reply to IA No. 13888/2010 alongwith respective affidavits exhibited as Ex P1, Ex P2 and Ex P3; (ii) legal notice dated 02.11.2011 exhibited as Ex P4;
(iii) reply of defendant no3 dated 08.11.2011 exhibited as Ex P5; (iv) reply dated 24.11.2011 on behalf of defendants no1 and 2 exhibited as Ex P6; (v) statement of receipts of profession derived from the books of accounts maintained dated 05.03.2002 exhibited as Ex P7. PW1 was crossexamined.
6. No evidence was led by respondents/defendants. RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 5 of 15
7. Aforesaid issue no1 was decided in favour of appellant/plaintiff and against respondents/defendants no1 and 2 but not against respondent/defendant no3 by the Trial Court, whereas, issue no2 was decided against the appellant/plaintiff in favour of the respondents/defendants.
8. Appellant/plaintiff has assailed the impugned decree and judgment basically on the premise viz., (i) respondent/defendant no3 has neither claimed the exception to the rule of defamation nor proved the same in terms of Evidence Act having not lead any evidence; (ii) the absolute privilege, available, if any, to all the respondents/defendants had to be claimed and proved by the respondents/defendants which had neither been so claimed by all the respondents/defendants nor any evidence was led in that regard; (iii) the absolute privilege, available to the parties, if any, had to be in respect to the parties in dispute/suit and not the opposite counsel; (iv) no special privilege is available to the advocates to defame the opposite counsel to score personal issues as had been so in the present case; (v) sending of reply by the respondents/defendants containing the defamatory imputations to the RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 6 of 15 client of the appellant/plaintiff on 24.12.2010 was not in fact any publication and limitation commenced only on 18.01.2011 when the respondents/defendants filed the reply in the Delhi High Court containing the defamatory imputation against the appellant/plaintiff.
9. I have heard the appellant/plaintiff, Sh. Vipin Sandhuja, Ld. Counsel for respondents no1 and 2 and Sh. Arun Bali, Ld. Proxy Counsel for respondent no3 and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence, relied precedents, written arguments on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and have also examined the record of the case. The appellant/plaintiff argued in terms of grounds set up in appeal elicited above and has placed reliance upon the cases - (i) Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 182 (2011) DLT 221; (ii) Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal, AIR 1966 Mad 363: 1966 Cr LJ 1149; and (iii) Chaman Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0107/1970, and has prayed for setting aside of the impugned decree and the judgment, allowing the appeal and passing decree in favour of appellant/plaintiff and against all the respondents/ defendants for the sum claimed in the suit. RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 7 of 15
10. Ld. Counsel for respondents/defendants no1 and 2 argued that the appeal is not maintainable as has been filed after period of limitation without application for condonation of delay. Also was argued that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to examine or prove in whose eyes his reputation has been tarnished or lowered down since the appellant/plaintiff has not examined Sh. Raj Narain and Sh. Jagdish Ghai or even his own client in whose eyes the appellant/plaintiff claims his image has been tarnished. Since, none of those persons have been examined, the claim of the appellant/plaintiff is not substantiated and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal or factual defect. Ld. Counsel for respondents/defendants argued for dismissal of the appeal.
11. In the foremost para of the impugned judgment, the Ld. Trial Court has in fact succinctly elicited the crux of the matter in the following words : " '..... her mentor with whom she is involved....' In my considered view, the above sentence is clearly a weapon of character assassination of not only the lady i.e. "she" but also of the "mentor" mentioned therein. RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 8 of 15 Irrespective of any craftsmanship shown by the defendants in preparing their written statement (WS), the said sentence can not loose its normal effect on whoever reads the said sentence as it is clearly indicating an immoral relation between "she" and "mentor".
Interestingly, the defendants have not denied the writing and also the factum of sending the same to the said "she" and filing of the said writing in the concerned court. It is therefore to be held that the said sentence was published when the same was read by the person to whom it was addressed. The said writing was addressed to the said "she" and therefore at that point of time there was no publication qua the said "she" as the publication requires a third person. But certainly when she was reading the writing, it amounted to publication qua the "mentor". The expression "involve" may have different meaning but in the context in which the same was used clearly indicates to only one meaning which can be attributed to it i.e. "immoral activity". A lady has not been referred to being involved in any work or passion or charity. The object of involvement is a man. Even it does not show that the lady is involved in some work with the help of the man. The sentence is showing that the lady is involved with the man himself. Therefore there can not be any other meaning to the expression "involved" in the above referred context. In such circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that publication was made qua the mentor and the sentence so written was defamatory."
RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 9 of 15
12. In the well crafted judgment of the Ld. Trial Court, in para4.2, it had been summed up that the word "mentor" in the elicited complained paragraph related to the Chartered Accountant of the respondent/defendant no1 and his father and it was not the case of the respondents/defendants that appellant/plaintiff was not Chartered Accountant of Sh. Sanjay and his father or that they were having other Chartered Accountants. Elicited circumstances lead to the inescapable conclusion that "mentor" was mentioned therein was appellant/plaintiff. Defamation was held to be writ large on the face of the sentence. Also was held by the Trial Court that as soon as Ms. Seema Grover received the copy containing the said sentence, the defamatory sentence stood published qua the mentor Sh. Anil Kathuria i.e., the appellant/plaintiff. The defamatory sentence has no corelation with the merits of the lis between said Ms. Seema and Sh. Sanjay and there had been no justification to include such sentence in a reply to any application filed in the concerned case. Even, respondents/defendants led no claim that said sentence was required to be made in the course of their reply or to refute any claim of any person. The elicited defamatory averments were so contained in reply Ex P1 of IA No. 13888/2010 in CS/OS 1103/2008. Ex RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 10 of 15 P1 was supported by affidavit Ex P2 of respondent no2 and affidavit Ex P3 of respondent no1 embodying the facts of being well conversant with the facts of the case and the reply Ex P1, which was to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC had been drafted under their instructions by their Counsel. Such elicited averments of respondents no.1 and 2 in their affidavits Ex P3 and P2, respectively, exonerate respondent no3 from any civil liability for claiming civil defamation as respondents/defendants no.1 and 2 were themselves responsible for getting the contents of Ex P1 drafted under their instructions through their Counsel/respondent/defendant no3.
13. In the case of B.C. Rana (Retd.) (Brig.) Vs. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., 2013 II AD (Delhi) 481, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir held in para25 and 26 as follows : "25. To claim that a particular statement is defamatory there should be publication to a third party and such publication should be of such a nature as is likely to cause appreciable injury to a person's reputation. Defamatory words, if false are actionable. False defamatory words, if written and published, RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 11 of 15 constitute a libel, if spoken, a slander. In libel, the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as, printing, typing, pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander, the defamatory statement or representation is expressed by speech or its equivalents, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a nod, wink, smile, hissing, the finger language of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.
26. In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of (1) refers to him; (2) is in writing, (3) is defamatory, and, (4) was published by the defendant to a third person or persons."
14. In view of the law laid in the case of B.C. Rana (Retd.) (Brig.) (supra), and even from bare perusal from the averments made in plaint, it is crystal clear and proved on record that the defamatory statement stood published qua the mentor i.e., appellant/plaintiff as soon as Ms. Seema Grover received the copy of reply Ex P1 containing said sentence on 24.12.2010. Even the averment of appellant/plaintiff in para7 of the plaint is that the cause of action had arisen first when reply to IA No. 13888/2010 i.e. copy of Ex P1 was sent by respondents/ defendants to Ms. Seema Grover Seth on 24.12.2010 and subsequently RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 12 of 15 when said reply was filed in Delhi High Court on 18.01.2011. Once appellant/plaintiff claimed of cause of action having arisen on 24.12.2010, the same writing cannot create any other point of time for limitation to begin. Single publication rule has been held to be more appropriate and pragmatic to apply rather than multiple publication rule, in case of Khawar Butt Vs. Asif Nazir Mir & Ors., 206 (2014) DLT 492; by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi and also was held therein that it is the policy of the law of limitation to bar the remedy beyond prescribed period as the legislative policy would stand defeated if the mere continued residing of defamatory material or article on website were to give a continuous cause of action to plaintiff to sue for defamation/libel. Relied precedents by appellant/plaintiff are in respect of the criminal offence of defamation described in Section 499 IPC and punishable under Section 500 of IPC, wherein the aspect of limitation was governed by Section 468 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those precedents embodying facts and circumstances entirely different and distinguishable to the set of facts and circumstances in the matter in hand have no application in the matter in hand for making out any case for appellant/plaintiff for setting aside the impugned decree and judgment RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 13 of 15 and to award the damages claimed by him. Article 75 of The Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963, clearly lays down period of limitation for claiming compensation for libel as one year and time begins to run when the libel is published. Section 9 of The Limitation Act, 1963, specifically lays down that once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it. Accordingly, period of limitation had begun to run on 24.12.2010 when copy of reply to IA No. 13888/2010 i.e., copy of Ex P1 was sent by respondents/ defendants to Ms. Seema Grover Seth but suit for damages for civil defamation was filed on 18.01.2012, after expiry of period of limitation of one year.
15. Except for some typographical errors with respect to correct date "24.12.2010" having been wrongly mentioned as "24.12.2012" in paras5.2 and 5.3 in the impugned judgment, I find nothing erroneous in the well crafted judgment of the Trial Court. Appeal being devoid of merits, not maintainable, is accordingly dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
RCA21/2014 Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 14 of 15
16. File of this appeal be consigned to record room and the requisitioned file of trial court be sent back against receipt. Copy of this judgment be also sent to the trial court.
Announced in open Court on 30th Day of May, 2015.
(Gurvinder Pal Singh)
Addl. Distt. Judge(Central)01,
(AD) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
RCA21/2014
Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Ms. Sangeeta Grover & Ors. Page 15 of 15