Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Manoj Badoliya vs Shashi Donde on 27 May, 2025

      IN THE COURT OF SH.ABHITOSH PRATAP SINGH RATHORE
               DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH DISTRICT,
                   SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.


                        Suit No.:CS DJ 120/2022

                       CNR No.:DLST01-001519-2022



IN THE MATTER OF :

Manoj Badoliya
S/o Sh. Shankar Lal
R/o House No.130,
Upper Ground Floor, Gali No.8,
Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.                                          ......Plaintiff.


Versus


1) Shashi Donde
Wd/o Sh. Chandarkant Donde

2) Poornima Donde
D/o Sh. Chandarkant Donde

3) Rajni Donde
D/o Sh. Chandarkant Donde

4) Deepika Donde
D/o Sh. Chandarkant Donde

All residents of
130, Upper Ground Floor,
Gali No.8, Krishna Nagar
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.                     .....Defendants.




CS DJ 120/22      Manoj Badoliya vs Shashi Donde & Ors.             Page 1 of 8
 Date of Institution of Suit                                         : 24.02.2022
Arguments heard on                                                  :13.05.2025
Judgment Pronouncement on                                           : 27.05.2025


SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF
  DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION AND RS.2,00,000/- FOR
 DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF OBSTRUCTION CAUSED
  BY NOT ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO LET OUT HIS
  FIRST FLOOR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BEARING
     HOUSE NO.130, GALI NO.8, KRISHNA NAGAR,
 SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110029 AND FOR
     MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

                             EX PARTE JUDGMENT

1.

The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff purchased and shifted to first floor of property bearing House No.130, Gali No.8, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029 in the year 2004. The defendant no.1 is the owner of one room portion on the ground floor of the aforesaid property and defendant no. 2 to 4 are her daughters. Defendant no.1, later in the year 2011, made unauthorized constructions and covered the open street area lying in front of her portion i.e. ground floor of aforesaid property bearing House No.130, Gali No.8, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and thus causing encroachment in the Gali area upto 5 feet from where the common drain pipe is within her extended portion. The defendant no.1 had been creating ruckus since long to get the said pipe removed from the unauthorized encroached portion. The said drain pipe is being used by all the occupants of the building including defendant no.1. However, since the defendants are quarrelsome persons, no one dared to object to the said act.

As per the plaint, plaintiff had also purchased two room accommodation on the ground floor of the aforesaid property in the year 2013. Defendants started harassing the plaintiff more after the purchase of the said portion, although the relations between the parties were already strained since 2011 when the defendants encroached upto 5 ft. of the street area. The defendants in collusion with each other have been creating problems for plaintiff and his family over the past many years.

The second floor portion of the property in question was occupied initially by one tenant namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma against whom the legal heirs of the then owner of second floor portion late Sh. Nota Ram had filed proceedings for getting the said portion vacated. The plaintiff appeared in that case as a witness. The said proceedings culminated into passing of a judgment against Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma. The appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed. Thereafter, Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma being so agitated, caused to get a case registered against the plaintiff under POCSO Act and later on the plaintiff was acquitted in the said case. In the meantime Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma had to vacate the property and he shifted out of the building.

The defendants in order to malign the plaintiff, despite having full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, began defaming the plaintiff in front of the residents of the locality and the public at large by saying that plaintiff was arrested and had remained in custody of the police in a POCSO case. Defendants have also claimed before the residents of the locality that plaintiff CS DJ 120/22 Manoj Badoliya vs Shashi Donde & Ors. Page 3 of 8 had gone to jail and had to pay a penalty of Rs.40,000/- for getting bail. Defendants have also filed a false and frivolous complaint against plaintiff and his family members, which resulted in proceedings u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C in the court of Special Executive Magistrate, South District, New Delhi. However, the plaintiff and his family members were discharged in the said proceedings. These acts of defendants have caused huge damage to the reputation of plaintiff in society at large and before residents of the locality and thus plaintiff has been suffering great mental agony because of wild allegations of defendants.

As per the plaint, the plaintiff modestly assesses an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as damages for the defamation, mental pain and agony so caused by the defendants. Defendants have also been causing harassment by blocking the street by parking car in the middle of the street, despite objections from the plaintiff and other residents of the locality. The defendant no.1 blocked the drain pipe, off and on and because of her said act many a times the property of plaintiff was flooded with drain water which caused immense loss to plaintiff and due to the said act of the defendants plaintiff had to shift his residence from his own property to a rented accommodation at Jangpura to save himself from the discomfort, so caused. Defendant no.1 has not been allowing plaintiff to lease out his premises bearing House No.130, Upper Ground Floor/First Floor, Gali No.8 Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The plaintiff has been suffering loss of rent to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month for the last 8 months and has suffered a loss of more than Rs.2,00,000/-.

Plaintiff also got served a legal notice dated 04.02.2022 to the defendants but the same was received back with the remarks 'unclaimed'. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

2. Summons of the suit for settlement of issues alongwith notice of application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC was issued to the defendants. As per the report on RC the defendants refused to take summons. An affidavit regarding proof of service on defendants was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Despite service of summons, defendants neither appeared nor filed their written statement to defend the present suit. So, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2022

3. Plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:

(1) Copy of complaint dated 02.09.2017 is Mark A; (2) Copy of order dated 04.01.2019 passed by Ld. Spl. Executive Magistrate is Mark B;

(3) Copy of Rent Agreement dated 20.01.2022 is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);

(4) Office copy of legal notice dated 17.01.2022 alongwith internet generated tracking report is Ex.PW1/2 (Colly); (5) Office copy of legal notice dated 04.02.2022 alongwith internet generated Tracking Report is Ex.PW1/3 (Colly).

(6) Four original envelopes are Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7; (7) The original transcript dated 18.10.2011 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/8 (colly);

(8) The transcript dated 29.01.2022 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/9(colly);

(9) Computer generated Photographs Ex.PW1/10 (Colly) are de-exhibited and marked as Mark C (colly).

PW-2 Sh. Harshvardhan Jha had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW2/A. He had relied upon CD and copy of transcript Ex.PW2/1.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. It is a settled position of law that defamation has several key elements. These elements comprise:

1. There must be a statement made by plaintiff.

2. Statement must be false.

3. Statement must be communicated to a third party.

4. Statement must, lower the estimate of plaintiff in the eyes of other persons.

Whereas there are certain exception / defence to the tort of defamation. These defences are:

1. Fair comment.

2. Absolute privilege.

3. Consent

4. Censor passed in good faith by the person having lawful authority.

So in a way plaintiff has to prove that statement was made by defendant that pertains to him. The statement was defamatory.

In the present case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. He has stated in his evidence affidavit that defendants have defamed him by making false complaints. The copy of complaint dated 02.09.2017 filed by the defendant before SHO Safdarjung Enclave is on record. The copy of order dated 04.01.2019 passed by Special Executive Magistrate is already on record. The transcript of the conversation whereby defendants created obstructions for plaintiff to rent out his property is also on record.

5. Testimony of PW-1/plaintiff and PW-2 Sh. Harshvardhan Jha remained unrebuted, unassailed and uncontroverted. In order to support his oral testimony, PW1 has also proved on record the documents i.e Copy of complaint dated 02.09.2017( Mark A); Copy of order dated 04.01.2019 passed by Ld. Spl. Executive Magistrate (Mark B); Copy of Rent Agreement dated 20.01.2022 ( Ex.PW1/1) (OSR); Office copy of legal notice dated 17.01.2022 alongwith internet generated tracking report (Ex.PW1/2 (Colly); Office copy of legal notice dated 04.02.2022 alongwith internet generated Tracking Report (Ex.PW1/3(Colly); Four original envelopes (Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7); The original transcript dated 18.10.2011 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/8 (colly); The transcript dated 29.01.2022 alongwith certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/9 (colly); Computer generated Photographs (Mark C (colly); CD and copy of transcript (Ex.PW2/1).

6. From the deposition of PW-1 / plaintiff and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff the case of the plaintiff is duly proved. Further, plaintiff has filed present suit within the period of limitation.

However, plaintiff has not produced any fact that would show as to how he computed the damages that he is claiming. In view of the totality of the circumstances, this court considers it fit to grant him damages of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of defamation and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of obstruction created by defendant no.1 in leasing out the property with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the satisfaction of the decree.

Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly, on filing of deficient court fee, if any.

File be consigned to the Record Room.

                                                                               Digitally
                                                                               signed by
                                                                    abhitosh abhitosh
Typed to the dictation directly,                                    pratap
                                                                    singh
                                                                             pratap singh
                                                                             rathore

corrected and pronounced in the
                                                                             Date:
                                                                    rathore 2025.05.27
                                                                             16:55:26

open Court on 27.05.2025
                                                                               +0530



                                 (Abhitosh Pratap Singh Rathore)
                                 District Judge-04 South District,
                                   Saket Courts, New Delhi.




CS DJ 120/22                Manoj Badoliya vs Shashi Donde & Ors.                           Page 8 of 8