Delhi District Court
Sh. Trilok Chand vs Ms. Meenu on 4 April, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR: JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 679/2009
Sh. Trilok Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Rati Ram,
R/o H.No. C114, Gali No.9,
Kanti Nagar Extension,
Delhi 110051. .....Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Meenu,
D/o Late Sh. Charan Singh,
R/o H.No. C121, Gali No.9,
Kanti Nagar Extension,
Delhi - 110051. .....Defendant.
Date of Institution :19.02.09
Date of arguments :03.04.13
Date of order :04.04.13
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND RECOVERY OF
DAMAGES/DEFAMATION AND FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES
JUDGMENT
Suit No.679/2009 Page 1 of 20
2
1 This is a suit for mandatory injunction and damages on account of defamation.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is residing in the locality where the defendant is residing. He is about 61 years old. He is having three sons and two daughters. All are educated, married and well settled. The plaintiff is duly elected Vice President of Welfare Association, Kanti Nagar Ext. (regd.), Delhi. He further stated that he is respectable person in the locality and people of the locality have great respect for him and his family members. He is also having good reputation in the political circle. 3 The plaintiff alleged that the defendant with the connivance and in collusion of anti social elements, who are misleading the defendant, have been making false complaints to the police against him which causes huge damages to him and his family member's reputation, respect and prestige. The plaintiff stated that the local police had not act on the false and baseless complaints of the defendant.
Suit No.679/2009 Page 2 of 20 3 4 The plaintiff alleged when the local police has not took any action on the complaints of the defendant. Then, the defendant had filed a false and baseless complaint against him before the Delhi State Women Commission, ITO, New Delhi. The plaintiff alleged that on 16.12.2008, when he appeared before the members of the Delhi State Women Commission, Smt. Mohini Jaiswal, room no. 206 in a case at serial no. 9 at about 02:30 p.m., the plaintiff started to give his explaination before the members of the commission. Then the defendant shouted upon the plaintiff. "Tu chup ho jaa. Tu ganda admi hai. Tu mera picha karta hai. Aur tu mere par gandi nigah rakhta hai. Tu lovely ko mere ghar ke samne bitha kar meetings karta hai. Aur ushka saath goonda logo ko mere picha karwata hai. Mere ghar ke samne tu scooter motorcycle aur car khadi karwata hai. Aur to meri chitties gayab karwa deta hai. Aur main tere beta aur teri gandi nigah ko pehchanti huin. There sath main aisha kaongi ki tu muh dikhane layak nahin rahega. Main tojhe badnam kar ke rakh doongi. To meri gali se hokar mat chala kar aur to yahan se chala jaa". And the defendant started shouting upon the plaintiff " Tu chup ho ja. Suit No.679/2009 Page 3 of 20 4 Nahin to tu jhe abhi maja chkhata huin". Thereafter the member of the commission threatened the defendant to keep quite otherwise her case will be transferred. The hearing was also adjourned for 19.01.2009 for the filing of status report by the concerned police station. The plaintiff alleged that by using the above said words the defendant has caused huge damages to his reputation, prestige and respect in the presence of member of the commission as well as other persons sitting in the gallery of the commission. 5 The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that when the defendant did not stopped her illegal actions, threats, he served a legal notice dated 13.01.2009 upon the defendant thereby calling upon the defendant to withdraw her false and baseless complaint from the Delhi State Women Commission. But till date the defendant has neither withdrawn the complaint from DSWC nor has tendered the apology before the plaintiff. The plaintiff again alleged that after receiving the legal notice the defendant has also abused him and his family members in filthy language in the gali of the locality.
Suit No.679/2009 Page 4 of 20 5 6 The plaintiff further stated that on 19.01.2009 when he was coming out of the Women Commission's office the defendant met him on the way and the defendant again extended threat to him by saying "Main tujhe badnam karke rahoongi. Tujhe aur there parivar ayshe cases main phansa doongi ki tu aur tera parivar zindigi bhar memre samne naak ragdega". The plaintiff further stated that on 13.02.2008 at about 04:15 p.m the defendant met him in the gali and extended threats in the presence of people of locality she also stated that "Tu gande charecter ka hai. Main tujhe aur tere parivar ko maja chakha kar rahungi. Tum sub ko badnam kar doongi." The plaintiff alleged that the defendant has caused defamation to him for which the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as damages for defamation. The plaintiff has also sought a relief for mandatory injunction that defendant be restrained not to harrass, torture, insult and humiliate him and his family members. Hence, the present suit.
7 Summons of the were issued to the defendant. The defendant has put her appearance and she has also filed her written statement. In preliminary objection, she has taken the Suit No.679/2009 Page 5 of 20 6 defence that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the court. The suit of the plaintiff is based on vague, false, baseless and based on fabricated statement. The defendant stated that the suit has been filed to harass her.
8 While replying on merit the defendant has admitted the filing of complaint before the Delhi State Woman Commission. She replied in the W/S that she has filed a complaint before the Delhi State Woman Commission because local police was not taking any action against the plaintiff on the complaints made by her. The defendant stated that all the complaints filed by her are true and correct. The plaintiff is an influensive person and financially sound and he tried to get cancelled the complaint filed by her in connivance with the local police. The defendant denied that she has used the filthy language on 16.12.2008 against the plaintiff before the Delhi State Woman Commission. She stated that the allegations are false. The defendant stated that she has received the legal notice through her mother but she come to know regarding the same after 23 months as her mother had not Suit No.679/2009 Page 6 of 20 7 informed her about the same. The defendant stated that on 19.01.2009 she has not met the plaintiff while he was coming out of the Delhi State Women Commission. The defendant further stated that she has not met with the plaintiff on 13.02.2009 and not given any threat to the defendant. The defendant has denied all other allegations leveled by the plaintiff against her. She stated that the present suit has been filed only to pressurized her to withdraw the complaint.
9 Replication to the W/S of defendant has been filed by the plaintiff in which he has denied the contention made by the defendant. He reaffirmed and reitearated the statement made by him in the plaint.
10 On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 05.10.2011:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant and her family members not to cause damage to their reputation, respect and prestige? Suit No.679/2009 Page 7 of 20 8 OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of damages/defamation of Rs. 2 lakhs along with 24% per annum interest? OPP.
3. Relief.
11 The plaintiff has examined 5 witnesses including himself. The PW1 has exhibited on record the document Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7. The PW2 has also made reference of the already exhibited document ExPW1/5. The PW3 and PW5 has not exhibited any document on record. The PW4 has relied upon the document Ex.PW4/1 to PW1/5 and Ex.PW4/7 to EX.PW4/9 and also made reference of document Ex. PW1/2 to PW1/4. The PW4 has also placed on record Mark PW4/MarkA. The defendant has examined herself as sole witness and exhibited the document Ex.DW1/2(colly 9 pages) and document Ex.DW1/3 (colly 16 pages).
12 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties. I give my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I Suit No.679/2009 Page 8 of 20 9 also perused the record. My issue wise finding is as under: ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of damages/defamation of Rs. 2 lakhs along with 24% per annum interest? OPP.
The issue no. 2 is taken firstly as it required a detailed discussion. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed damages on account of defamation allegedly done by the defendant. There are two types of defamation, one is libel defamation and second is slander defamation. To prove the libel defamation it is required to be proved, firstly the statement is false, secondly, it is in writing, it is defamatory and same has been published. To prove the slander defamation it must be proved that the words complained of are, (i) false, (ii) defamatory and (iii) published by the defendant. In the light of ingredients of both types of defamation I herein after will discussion the claim of the plaintiff. Firstly, I will discuss whether the defendant has caused any libel defamation of plaintiff. The PWs have not exhibited any writing on record which caused a libel Suit No.679/2009 Page 9 of 20 10 defamation of him. The PW1 is deposing regarding the facts of serving of legal notice upon the defendant as well as the complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Ld. MM as well as letter written by him to the concerned SHO. The PW2 has also not placed on record and exhibited any writing on record which has cause the libel defamation of the plaintiff. The same is situation with the PW3 and PW5, as they have also not placed on record any writing written by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself has also not placed on record and exhibited any writing on record which is allegedly cause libel defamation of him. So, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has failed to prove that any libel defamation has been cause by the defendant of his.
The second point which is to be answered by the court whether the defendant has cause slander defamation of the plaintiff. The ingredients of the slander defamation has to be proved by the plaintiff. The publication of the word complained of must be proved by the plaintiff. It is established law that communicating defamatory matter to some person other than the Suit No.679/2009 Page 10 of 20 11 person of whom it is written or spoken is publication in its legal sense. If the words are spoken to the person of whom it is spoken, there is no publication of it, for you can not publish a slander of a man to himself. That can not injure his reputation, though it may injure his self esteem. A man's reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself. The words complained of should be communicating to some person other than the plaintiff.
From the perusal of evidence on record it reveals that the PW3 and PW5 does not says any words which were spoken by the defendant in respect of plaintiff. The PW3 and PW5 has not mentioned even a single word in their examination in chief what were the words which were used by the defendant regarding plaintiff and those words are defamatory in nature. So, the testimony of PW3 and PW5 is not helping the plaintiff at all.
So far as the plaintiff's deposition is concerned. The plaintiff asserted in plaint in para 8, 12 and 13 that certain words Suit No.679/2009 Page 11 of 20 12 were used by the defendant against him which are defamatory in nature. All these words are find mentioned in para 8,12 and 13 of the plaint which are as under: "para no. 8 "Tu chup ho jaa. Tu ganda admi hai. Tu mera picha karta hai. Aur tu mere par gandi nigah rakhta hai. Tu lovely ko mere ghar ke samne bitha kar meetings karta hai. Aur ushka saath goonda logo ko meme picha karwata hai. Mere ghar ke samne tu scooter motorcycle aur car khadi karwata hai.
Aur to meri chitties gayab karwa deta hai. Aur main tere beta aur teri gandi nigah ko pehchanti huin. There sath main aisha kaongi ki tu muh dikhane layak nahin rahega. Main tojhe badnam kar ke rakh doongi. To meri gali se hokar mat chala kar aur to yahan se chala jaa".
Suit No.679/2009 Page 12 of 20 13 And the defendant started shouting upon the plaintiff " Tu chup ho ja. Nahin to tu jhe abhi maja chkhata huin". Thereafter the members of the commission threatened the defendant to keep quite otherwise her case will be transferred.
Para no. 12 "Main tujhe badnam karke rahoongi. Tujhe aur there parivar ayshe cases main phansa doongi ki tu aur tera parivar zindigi bhar memre samne naak ragdega".
Para no. 13 "Tu gande charecter ka hai. Main tujhe aur tere parivar ko maja chakha kar rahungi. Tum sub ko badnam kar doongi."
Suit No.679/2009 Page 13 of 20 14 Let us take firstly, the alleged word used in para 12 of the plaint. The alleged were used by the defendant on 19.01.09 when the plaintiff was coming out of the Delhi State Woman's Commission Office. The plaintiff/PW4 has admitted in his cross examination that no person was present on 19.01.09 when the defendant had abused him outside the office of the State Woman Commission. So, the word used in para no. 12 of the plaint are not communicated to any person other than the plaintiff, so there is no publication of the word alleged in para no. 12 of the plaint.
Secondly, so far as the alleged words used by the defendant and are being stated in para 13 is concerned. No witness has been examined by the plaintiff to prove that the words complained of in para 13 of the plaint were communication to any third person. So, the words used in para no. 13 are also not published.
Thirdly, so far as the alleged words used in para no. 8 of the plaint is concerned. The question is whether these Suit No.679/2009 Page 14 of 20 15 words were also published or not. The plaintiff nowhere stated in the plaint that any his known person had heard these words as allegedly used by the defendant against him. The question also arises whether in actual these words were spoken by the defendant or not. The defendant has placed on record the proceedings held before The State Woman Commission. The same are exhibited as DW1/3 running into 16 pages and there are also certified copies. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the words, as mentioned in plaint in para no. 8, were used by the defendant before The State Woman Commission on 16.12.08. The proceedings dated 16.12.08 are as under: "Present: Ms. Meenu Present Mr. Trilok Chand. He states that complainant is mentally disturb after the death of her father. But complainant is quite o.k as per observations Health Commission. Please summon to DCP, P.S. Krishna Nagar with status report in case Meenu H. NO. C/121, Street no. 9.
Suit No.679/2009 Page 15 of 20 16 Kanti Nagar, Extension Delhi51, dated 1.10.07. DD no. 26B. Please come for next hearing on 19.09.09."
From the perusal of proceedings dated 16.12.08 it reveals that no such words were used by the defendant on 16.12.08. If the defendant could have used these words before the member of state woman commission then definitely the member of The State Woman Commission could have mentioned these words in the proceedings. Because the words used in para 8 of the plaint are of such a nature that no public officer will allow to speak those words. These words may be considered as interference in the discharge of work of State Woman Commission. The plaintiff has not examined any other witness in whose presence the complained words were spoken by the defendant against him. I am of the view that the words used in para no. 8 of the plaint were not spoken by the defendant before The State Woman Commission. The plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that the defendant has cause defamation either libel of slander.
Suit No.679/2009 Page 16 of 20 17
On the other hand from the perusal of para no. 9 of the plaint which reads as: "That it is pertinent to mention herein that when the defendant did not stopped her illegal acts and threats, then the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 13.01.09 upon the defendant through registered AD post as well as through UPC post thereby calling upon the defendant to withdraw her false and baseless complaints from the Delhi State Women Commission, New Delhi and the said legal notice has been duly served upon the defendant on dated 15.01.09 but till date the defendant has neither withdrawn her complaint from Delhi State Women Commission, New Delhi nor has tendered the apology before the plaintiff."
Suit No.679/2009 Page 17 of 20 18 It reveals that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only to pressurizing the defendant to withdraw the complaint filed against him before the State Woman Commission of Delhi. So, I am of the considered view that plaintiff is not entitled for damages. The issue is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant and her family members not to cause damage to their reputation, respect and prestige? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue is on plaintiff. As I have discussed on issue no. 2 and come to the conclusion that plaintiff has not caused any defamation and insult to the plaintiff. The filing of complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff before the competent court of law or the police concerned can not be Suit No.679/2009 Page 18 of 20 19 restrained. Because it is established law that any person can complaint before competent authority who is competent to adjudicate the complaint and to take cognizance of that complaint. The complaint filed by the plaintiff against the defendant and by the defendant against the plaintiff are subjudice before the competent court of law. Sec.41(d) of specific relief act bars the granting of injunction to restrain a person to initiate a judicial proceedings.
It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that defendant be restrained from using filthy and abusive language. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff conceded that a court can not pass an injunction which can not got be implemented by the court by issuing injunction. A court can not put a tape upon a mouth of a person and can say you will not use filthy language. It is human nature that a human may react according to situation. And suppose there is a quarrelsome between two parties. It is graved apprehension that both parties may use filthy language. Court can not issue such type of injunction which can not be got implemented by the court. So, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled of mandatory injunction. Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of defendant Suit No.679/2009 Page 19 of 20 20 and against the plaintiff.
Relief So, in view of the above discussion the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open Court (JAGDISH KUMAR)
today i.e 04.04.13) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East)
KKD COURT
Suit No.679/2009 Page 20 of 20
21
Suit no. 679/09
04.04.13
Present: Proxy counsel for plaintiff.
Proxy counsel for defendant.
Vide separate judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Jagdish Kumar) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ(East) KKD COURTS/04.04.13 Suit No.679/2009 Page 21 of 20