Bangalore District Court
Mrs. S. Bolar vs Bro. Thomas Thanickal on 5 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2015.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.B.(Spl.),
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.6271/2005
PLAINTIFF : Mrs. S. Bolar,
W/o. Late Ashok Bolar,
Aged about 61 years,
Founder Principal,
Innisfree House School,
9th Cross, 23rd Main,
J.P. Nagar II Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
(By Smt. Rosa Paramel, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANT : Bro. Thomas Thanickal,
S/o. Joseph,
Aged about 57 years,
Principal,
Cambridge School,
Cantonment Road,
Cuttack - 753 001.
(By Sri B.G. Rajashekar, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of institution : 19-08-2005.
Nature of suit : For damages in a sum of
Rs.10,00,000-00 from the
defendant.
Date of commence- : 26-10-2009.
ment of recording of
evidence
-2- O.S. No.6271/2005
Date on which the : 05-12-2015.
Judgment was
Pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
-----------------------------------------
Total duration 10 years 3 months, 17 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass decree for damages a sum of Rs.10,00,000-00 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:-
The plaintiff has contended that she is the founder principal of the Innisfree House School since 1985 and the said school is a prestigious school in Bengaluru with about 850 students. The plaintiff is a reputable lady from a respectable family and has obtained B.Sc.,M.Ed. degree from Mysore University. She is a prominent personality and an educationist who is known for her sincere and dedicated service not only in the field of education but also in other fields including community service. She is an active and successful Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.6271/2005 Member of the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination for the last 13 years and also the Member of the Association of Schools for the Indian School Certificate for over 18 years and she has rendered selfless service for the development and the prominence of the said Association and the Society.
The plaintiff is holding a prestigious post as Member of the Executive Committee, Finance Committee and Standing Committee on Examination of the Council. There are about 1400 schools affiliated to the Council at New Delhi. The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi is the examining body which conducts the Indian School Certificate Examination as per the rules and regulations framed by it. Plaintiff is an Executive Committee Member of the Council and a Member of the Executive Committee of the Association which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is submitted that only affiliated schools throughout the country are eligible to the Members of the Council and representing about 1400 Member schools and 900 of these schools are Members of the Association. Plaintiff is a founder secretary of the Association during 2000-2003. She is also a Member of the Board of Studies in Education, Mysore University, Senior Rotarian, the Indian Resident Trustee of the U.K. Registered Charity. Plaintiff is also supporting an Old Age Home for Women near Kasargod and to provide education for the downtrodden and Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.6271/2005 needy children in the slum area. She has adopted a
slum school in Ragigudda and provides books, uniforms and mid-day meals to about 200 children in the said school.
It submitted that the defendant is the Principal of Cambridge School, Cuttack. He is also the Secretary
-cum- Treasurer of the Association of Schools for Indian School Certificate and at present, he is placed under suspension. It is submitted that the plaintiff was the Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the said Association during 2000-2003. At that point of time, the defendant was just an ordinary Member of the Association and he was not happy with the plaintiff holding the said post and was aspiring for the post for various reasons. The defendant has been targeting the plaintiff right from the time that she has been the Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the said Association and the defendant has been hostile towards the plaintiff as the plaintiff has been drawing attention to the incorrect conduct of meetings of the Association and of its functioning. It is submitted that certain irregularities had been committed by the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council and an enquiry has been instituted by the Council against the said C.E.S. It is submitted that the defendant has addressed letters dated 16-06-2005 to all the Members of the Association and 20-06-2005 to the President and all the Executive Committee Members of the Association and Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.6271/2005 also to the Chairman and the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council with a sole intention and vindictive attitude to tarnish the high reputation and social image of the plaintiff. The contents of the letters consist of false, frivolous, unwarranted, derogatory, unparliamentary and irrelevant allegations which tend to impair the plaintiff's reputation and position in the society. It is submitted that in the letter dated 16-06- 2005, the defendant has stated amongst various allegations that - "Experience also shows that through a back door method of reaching key positions in the Executive committee of the Council Society, many Anglo- Indian persons have been first co-opted by the executive committee as Members of the Society and then conveniently elected to the executive committee as Members."
It is submitted that the defendant has further stated in the said letter that - "It has come to my knowledge that a handful of Members of the executive committee of the ASISC met in Hyderabad on 14.6.05 and have demanded withdrawal of my letter written to the Council Society on 31.03.2005. This resolution seems to have been passed under pressure from the same dubious coterie which wants our Association to bow before the Anglo-Indian dominated Council Society at New Delhi. Through their representative Ms. S. Bolar, this coterie is now attempting to spread disaffection and Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.6271/2005 groupism in our Association and engineer a split, if possible."
Further, the plaintiff has contended that in a letter dated 20-06-2005, the defendant has alleged - "In case you have forgotten I may also remind you that ASISC has a valid and representation in the structure of the Council, mandated by the Memorandum of Association of the Council-Society under clause 5(l)(g)(iii). Mrs. Bolar's claim in her letter on 07.06.2005 that "the Association has no authority to question these issues" (concerning financial improprieties of the Chairman) reeks of her ignorance and callousness towards the Association's responsibilities. She is clearly no more than a stooge of the coterie who is subverting the Association's interest at the behest. In any case, her gross financial irregularities during her tenure as Secretary of ASISC, which was strongly indicted by the finance committee, should not be forgotten."
"Ms. Bolar also has the dubious distinction of working for her self-interest by using the Council's platform and identity. One small instance of this mentality is the manner in which she tried to get the Mysore University affiliated B.Ed., - CISCE course to be confined only to her school, i.e., innisfree House School, Bangalore, thereby denying the benefits to other Member schools of Karnataka. Since this move was thwarted by the Secretary Mr. Fransis Fanthome in EC Meeting who wanted the benefit to extend to all the Member schoold as Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.6271/2005 centres, she has turned against him in revenge and aligned herself with the Mr. Neil O'Brien led coterie seeking to settle scores. Every Member of our Association should understand the shrewd motive of Mrs. Bolar and herself motivated action within the Association."
It is submitted that the defendant is holding the position of the Secretary and Treasurer of the Association while making these frivolous allegations, though the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was duly appointed and nominated to the Executive, Finance and Standing Committee by the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of Council in the year 2000 and she was also Member of Council from 1993 he has made the allegations only in order to lower the image of the plaintiff in the eye of general public and Members of the Society and it has caused severe mental agony. The defendant is making the allegation with regard to financial irregularities only to mislead and defame her with personal motives since there were no such instances at all during her tenure as a Secretary of the Association.
It is submitted that during the emergency Executive Committee Meeting of the Association held in Lucknow on 24-06-2005, the defendant vide his letter dated 24-06-2005 regretted addressing the aforesaid letters which caused anguish amongst the Members of the Association and thereby withdrew those letters. Subsequently on 25-06-2005, the defendant withdrew Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.6271/2005 his previous letter dated 24-06-2005 addressed to the Executive Committee on the ground that he had signed the said letter under pressure. It is submitted that the defendant has written these letters carelessly and hurriedly with ulterior motives to malign plaintiff's position as a reputed Member of the Council and the Association. It is submitted that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 30-06-2005 to the defendant demanding a sum of Rs.10,00,000-00 as damages from the defendant and asking the defendant to withdraw the letters and issue an appropriate apology letter withdrawing the said allegation against the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. It is submitted that in spite of service of notice, the defendant has neither paid the amount nor withdrawn the above said letters or issued any apology letter withdrawing the said allegations. It is submitted that in view of the mental agony that she was suffering has led to great disturbance in the mind of her husband and in view of the same, her husband suffered heart attack and passed away on 14-07-2005. The defendant had no basis whatsoever to make such an unrestrained and defamatory allegations. In view of the above, the day-to-day activities and position of the plaintiff has been hampered due to the defendant's frivolous and reckless allegations against the plaintiff.
It is submitted that the defendant has now filed O.S. No.270/2005 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.6271/2005 Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack. Though he has
filed the said suit against the Association challenging his suspension, he has arrayed the plaintiff as 'third defendant' and alleged defamatory statements against the plaintiff in the said suit to harass and malign the plaintiff and cause her further mental pain and agony. With this submission, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, upon service of notice, the defendant has appeared through his Counsel and filed his written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of the defendant are as follows:-
The defendant has denied that the plaintiff is founder Principal of the Innisfree High School since 1985 and that the said school is a prestigious school with about 850 students. He has also denied that the plaintiff is a prominent personality and an educationist and is known for dedicated service not only in the field of education but also in other fields. The defendant has also denied that the plaintiff is holding a prestigious post as a Member of the Executive Committee, Finance Committee and Standing Committee on Examination of the Council. He has also denied that the plaintiff is an elected representative Member of the Council represented about 1400 Member schools. He has denied that the plaintiff is supporting Old Age Home for Women near Kasargod and that she adopted a school in Ragigudda.
Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.6271/2005 The defendant has admitted that he is the Principal of Cambridge School and that he is the Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the Association of Schools for Indian School Certificate. He has denied that he was placed under suspension through resolution dated 25- 06-2005. The defendant has denied that he has been targeting the plaintiff right from the time she has been the Secretary -cum- Treasurer and he has been hostile towards the plaintiff as the plaintiff has been drawing the attention to the incorrect conduct of meetings of the Association and its functioning. The defendant has admitted regarding certain alleged irregularities committed by the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council and institution of enquiry by the Counsel against the C.E.C., but denied that he wrote a letters dated 16-06-2005 to all the Members of the Association and 20-06-2003 addressed to the President and all the executive committee and Members of the Association and also to the Chairman and the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council with the sole intention and vindictive attitude to tarnish the high reputation and social image of the plaintiff. The defendant has taken specific contention that the plaintiff was Secretary - cum- Treasurer of the Association during the year 2002-2003 and she was also representing the Association in the Council and at that time, the defendant was the Member of the Executive Committee of the said Association. It is submitted that in the Annual General Body Meeting of the Association in Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.6271/2005 2003, the defendant was nominated by the majority of the Members of ASISC to stand for the election to the post of the Secretary-Treasurer. The defendant therefore had the opportunity to contest for the election to the post of Secretary -cum- Treasurer of ASISC. In the said election, the defendant was duly declared elected to the said post through a secret ballot representing nearly 900 affiliated schools throughout the country and likewise again the defendant was elected unanimously in a General Body Meeting to continue as Secretary -cum- Treasurer for the year 2004-2005.
It is submitted that while the things stood thus, the defendant as an elected Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the Association who was discharging his rights, duties and obligations came across certain news articles published in the English Daily newspaper, viz., Times of India including some other newspapers against the Chairman and the Members of the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi regarding financial irregularities, maladministration and misappropriation of the Council funds, etc. After going through the same, the defendant as well as many of the Members of the Association became surprised that huge amounts of the Council's funds have been contributed by the affiliated Member Schools and also by the students of the Schools, i.e., Rs.3,500-00 by each affiliated schools and a sum of Rs.75-00 by each Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.6271/2005 student at the time of registration to the Council. The defendant being the Secretary-Treasurer of the Association as well as the Member of the affiliated schools and also being a Member of Council tried to find out the veracity of such allegations and after enquiry, it was revealed from several documents that the Chairman and some of the Members of the Council are involved in the said financial irregularities. One of the Members of the Council is also the Executive Body Member of the Defendant's Association who is none else other than the plaintiff and she is fully aware of misappropriation of Council funds and maladministration which was noticed by the defendant for which the defendant had written two letters dated 31-05-2005 and 20-06-2005 addressing to the Council Authority demanding an emergency meeting for discussion of the issues as well as the irregularities. One of the Members of the Council is also executive body Member of the defendant's Association who is plaintiff and who is fully aware of misappropriation of Council funds. The defendant has communicated the detailed graphic picture vide letter dated 16-06-2005 to all the Members of the Association about the day-to-day activities and irregularities of the Council which are serious in nature so far as the interest and rights of the educational institutions are concerned. It is submitted that the defendant's two letters addressed to the Council contains the irregularities and maladministration committed by the Members of the Council, the Council did not respond to Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.6271/2005 the letters issued by the defendant. However,
surprisingly on 07-06-2005 the plaintiff has issued a letter addressed to the defendant as to why he addressed the letter dated 31-05-2005 to the Council and raised the issues. After receipt of the above said letter from the plaintiff, the defendant was quite surprised and was very much shocked. After thorough enquiry, it was revealed that the plaintiff was well aware of the irregularities and misappropriation of the Council's funds. It is submitted that the plaintiff having been afraid of the action of the defendant by utilizing her muscle and financial power in order to patch up her misdeed has managed to catch hold of the Council as well as a few Members of the Executive Body of the Association for taking action against the defendant as to why the defendant has written letter dated 31-05-2005 alleging about the financial irregularities and maladministration of the Council. Though there was no such power vested with the Executive Body as well as per the MOA of AISC, on 14-06-2005 one emergency meeting of the Executive Committee of the said Association was called for at the behest of the plaintiff without prior notice of the defendant. Taking advantage of the absence of the defendant, it was decided in the said meeting to call for an explanation from the defendant and further it was resolved to ask the defendant to beg apology for the letter dated 31-05- 2005. It is submitted that the aforesaid meeting was held at Hyderabad at the behest of the plaintiff in order Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.6271/2005 to save her skin without giving prior notice to all the Executive Body Members. In this regard, A.C. George had written a letter to the President of the Association indicating his protest about the illegal action of the President holding the emergency meeting against the defendant. The defendant has challenged the President's ill-motive by calling a meeting held on 14- 06-2005 without proper notice to all the Members.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has no business whatsoever to put questions with regard to letter dated 31-05-2005 addressed to the Chairman of the Council, but the plaintiff reacted to the said letter of the defendant dated 31-05-2005 vide her letter dated 07- 04-2005 even though the same was not addressed to her, questioned defendant's authority and locus-standi asking why the defendant has written such letter to the Council challenging the defendant about his authorization for issuing such letter. It is submitted that in such meeting, further resolution was passed placing the defendant under suspension. However, the suspension was challenged and the Hon'ble Court granted status-quo order ante of the office of the Secretary of the Association and therefore, it was decided to withdraw the case and accordingly, he has withdrawn the case. It is submitted that in view of the above said facts, the allegation of the plaintiff that her image is lowered in the Society and she had suffered severe mental agony - are all false and baseless. It is Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.6271/2005 submitted that due to some oblique motive and mala fide intention, meeting was scheduled to be held at Lucknow on 14-06-2005 without giving proper notice to the other Members of the resolution and asked the defendant to show cause as well as apology letter. On 24-06-2005, the meeting was convened at Lucknow and in the said meeting, the defendant was forced to sign a letter dated 24-06-2005 addressed to the President to beg apology for the issues he raised against the Council. It is submitted that though the defendant was not interested to withdraw the letters dated 31-05-2005 and 20-06-2005, the defendant signed the letter by compulsion. Later on, the defendant came to know about the ulterior motive the defendant immediately withdrawn the said letter and he has also issued another letter dated 25-06-2005 addressed to all the Members of the General Body Meeting scheduled on the same day indicating that he would continue to raise such issues on behalf of the Association even at the risk of his life. The defendant in a state of utter helplessness and anguish and under serious pressure and coercion, gave such a letter and taking this as an excuse, the Executive Committee suspended him and he has challenged the said suspension in O.S. No.270/2005 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Cuttack and the said Court granted injunction in favour of the defendant and directed to maintain status-quo. It is submitted that the said suit was subsequently withdrawn in view of the settlement Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.6271/2005 and the Executive Committee restored the position of the defendant as Secretary -cum- Treasurer. It is submitted that the defendant was given liberty by the Executive Committee to fight in W.P. No.8816/2005 before the High Court of Lucknow. Writ Petition No.8866/2005 was instituted on the file of the High Court of Orissa and the plaintiff is also a party to the said Writ Petition. It is submitted that for all purpose when once the matter was settled vide resolution dated 31-08-2015, it was no longer open to the plaintiff to agitate personally the issues raised in the present suit. On 31-08-2015 in the presence of the defendant and other Members who also participated in the said meeting, the plaintiff has also expressed her consent to the said resolution and has not raised any opposition and resolution having been unanimously passed and the plaintiff having not raised any issue, she cannot now turn around and raise the issued as is raised in the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit since the defendant has withdrawn the suit filed by him as agreed not to raise any controversial matters in pursuance of the settlement. It is submitted that subsequently on 11-02-2006, the meeting was held in Taj Hotel at Varanasi in a spirit of co-operation and in the interest of the amity and cordiality in the organization the Members requested this defendant to formally withdraw the case fled against the Council and tender apology to Mrs. Bolar and requested Mrs. Bolar to withdraw the case alleged to have been filed by her in Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.6271/2005 Bengaluru against the defendant. It is submitted that Mrs. Bolar at that point of time imposed a condition that a specific letter must be written by the defendant expressing his apology. Plaintiff had agreed in the said meeting and stated that unless a copy of the apology was sent to all the Members of the Association, she would not withdraw the case filed against the defendant. In the said meeting, she even said that the defendant is a liar and she will not believe his words, but finally the plaintiff states that she would withdraw the case once the letter of apology reaches all the Members. It is submitted that the letter of apology was drafted by Fr. Thomas Chittoo and on the direction of the executive committee and after acceptance by Mrs. Bolar and the Members of the Committee, the said letter was signed by the defendant. In the meeting, it was specifically clarified by the defendant that he would sign the papers if and only if it would put an end to all the cases and the case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff was applauded by the executive committee for her good gesture and goodwill to withdraw the case. It is submitted that the matter was treated as settled and this fact had not been brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court by the plaintiff. The resolution dated 11-02-2006 is acted upon and letter of apology has been sent to all the constituent Members and after the letter of apology was received by the plaintiff, she thereafter tried to shrewdly extricate herself out of the same with the only purpose Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.6271/2005 of dodging and fleeing from her responsibility to withdraw the suit. It is submitted that to his astonishment, the plaintiff instead of withdrawing the case as promised has got issued summons by substituted service by way of paper publication contrary to her undertaking and assertion. With this submission, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court had framed the following Issues and Additional Issue:-
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is prestigious Member of the Committed Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination?
2) Whether she further proves that the defendant has addressed letter to all the Members of the Association containing false and frivolous allegations impairing the reputation of the plaintiff as contended in Para 8 of the plaint?
Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.6271/2005
3) Does she further prove the loss of man hours thereby suffered damage to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-?
4) Does she further prove that she suffered mental agony affecting her reputation?
5) If so, what amount is the plaintiff entitled to?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE:
1. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is estopped from filing and prosecuting the above suit as contended in Paragraphs-20 to 22 of the Written Statement?
5. In order to prove the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and she got documents marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and closed her side.
6. When the case was posted for defendant's evidence, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.16 and closed his side.
Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.6271/2005
7. It is relevant to mention here that two documents are marked as Ex.D.1.
8. I have heard the arguments of both sides.
9. At the time of argument, Advocate for the plaintiff has submitted notes of arguments.
10. My findings on the above Issues and Additional Issue are as follows:-
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - Negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - Negative;
ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1 : At the time of argument, Advocate for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is a founder Principal of the Innisfree House School since 1985 and the said school is a prestigious school in Bengaluru with about 850 students. The plaintiff is a reputable lady from a respectable family Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.6271/2005 and has obtained B.Sc.,M.Ed. degree from Mysore University. Further, it is argued that she is a prominent personality and an educationist who is known for her sincere and dedicated service not only in the field of education but also in other fields including community service. She is an active and successful Member of the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination. It is argued that the plaintiff is holding a prestigious post as Member of the Executive Committed, Finance Committee and Standing Committee on Examination of the Council. It is argued that there is dispute with regard to the position held by the plaintiff. Even the defendant has also admitted that the plaintiff worked as a Member of the Committee Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination. It is argued that plaintiff has produced various documents to show her status as Member of the Committee for the Indian School Certificate Examination. With this submission, Advocate for the plaintiff prayed that Issue No.1 be answered in favour of the plaintiff.
12. On the other hand, Advocate for the defendant has vehemently argued that there is no dispute with regard to the position held by the plaintiff as a Member of the Committee Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination.
13. In my considered view, on perusal of the oral and the documentary evidenced of both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.6271/2005 Issue No.1 in her favour. In order to prove Issue No.1, plaintiff herein is examined as P.W.1 and in her evidence, she has specifically deposed about her status. She has deposed that she is a prominent personality and educationist who is known for her sincere and dedicated service not only in the field of education, but also in other fields including community service. Further, she has deposed that she is an active and successful Member of the Council for the last 13 years and also Member of the Association of Schools for the Indian School Certificate Examination for over 18 years. In the written statement, though at the initial stage the defendant has denied the position held by the plaintiff, thereafter the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is a prestigious Member of the Committee Council for Indian School Certificate Examination. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.7. It discloses that she is a Member of Executive Committee of Association of Schools for the Indian School Certificate. Apart from this, in the cross- examination D.W.1 has clearly admitted that the plaintiff is a founder Principal of Innisfree House School. He has also admitted that the plaintiff is an Executive Committee Member of Council for Indian School Certificate Examination Board. He has also admitted that the plaintiff is Secretary of the Association of Indian Schools. These are the admissions D.W.1 this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved Issue No.1. Accordingly, my answer to Issue No.1 is in the 'affirmative'.
Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.6271/2005
14. ISSUE No.2 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1 :
Both the above issues are inter-linked with each other and therefore, they are taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
15. At the time of argument, Advocate for the plaintiff has submitted notes of arguments wherein it is submitted that the defendant being Principal of Cambridge School, Cuttack and also Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the Association of Schools for Indian School Certificate and by order dated 25-06-2005, he was placed under suspension. It is submitted that when the plaintiff was Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the said Association, the defendant was just an ordinary Member of the Association and he was not happy with the plaintiff holding the said post. It is argued that certain irregularities had been committed by the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council and an enquiry has been instituted by the Council against the Chief Executive. It is argued that at that time, letters dated 16-06-2005 and 20-06-2005 were addressed to all the 900 Members of the Association by the defendant with a sole intention and vindictive desire to tarnish high reputation and social image of the plaintiff. It is argued that the contents of the letters consisting of false, frivolous, unwarranted, derogatory, unparliamentary and irrelevant allegations. It is argued that the plaintiff has produced those letters and even the defendant has not disputed the writing of those letters. It is argued Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.6271/2005 that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has addressed letters to all the Members contending frivolous allegations impairing the reputation of the plaintiff. With this submission, Advocate for plaintiff prayed to answer Issue No.2 in the 'affirmative' and Additional Issue No.1 in the 'negative'.
16. On the other hand, Advocate for the defendant has argued that there is no dispute with regard to position held by the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of filing of the suit. Further, he has argued that even there is no dispute that the plaintiff was Secretary
-cum- Treasurer of the Association during the period 2000-2003. He has also argued that even there is no dispute with regard to letter written by the defendant dated 16-06-2005 addressed to all the Members of the Association and on 20-06-2005 addressed to the Principal President and Executive Committee Members of the Association. He has argued that the said letters have not been written by the defendant with an intention to tarnish the high reputation and social image of the plaintiff. He has argued that in the General Body Meeting of the Association in the year 2003, the defendant was engaged by the majority of the Members of ASISC to stand for election to the post of Secretary and Treasurer and the defendant was duly declared as elected to the said post. He has argued that after the defendant was elected and became Secretary defeating the plaintiff in the election, he has assumed Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.6271/2005 charge of the office as Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the Association who was discharged his rights and duties and obligations. Further, he has argued that at that time, certain news articles published in the newspapers, viz., Times of India against the Chairman and Members of the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi regarding the financial irregularities, maladministration and misappropriation. It is argued that after going through the same, the defendant as well as many of the Members of the Association became surprised that huge amount of Council has been contributed by the affiliated Member Schools and also by the students of the schools. Further, he has argued that the defendant being Secretary of the Association as well as Member of the affiliated school and also being Member of the Council tried to find out the veracity of such allegations and it was revealed from several documents that Chairman and some Members of the Council are involved in the said financial irregularities. Lastly, he has argued that the said fact was brought to the notice of the Members as well as President of the ASISC as per Exs.P.1 and P.2. Further, he has argued that contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2 are based on the Inspection Report which is marked as per Ex.D.1. (As I have discussed above, Ex.D.1 is marked twice). Further, he has argued that though the plaintiff has filed suit against the plaintiff in O.S. No.270/2005 and thereafter the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit therefore, the plaintiff is estopped Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.6271/2005 from filing this suit. With this submission, Advocate for the defendant has prayed that the above Issues be answered in favour of the defendant.
17. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.2 in her favour. On the other hand, the defendant has proved the Additional Issue No.1 in his favour.
18. As I have discussed above, there is no dispute with regard to the positions held by the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of filing the suit. Even there is no dispute with regard to letter written by the plaintiff as per Exs.P.1 and P.2 to the colleague Members as well as to the President of ASISC. On the basis of the contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2, the plaintiff has filed this suit with an allegation that the defendant with sole intention and vindictive intention to tarnish her image has written those letters. The relevant Paras of Exs.P.1 and P.2 are as follows:-
"a) In letter dated 16th June 2005, the Defendant has stated amongst various allegations that "Experience also shows that through a back door method of reaching key positions in the Executive committee of the Council Society, many Anglo-Indian persons have been first co-opted by the executive committee as Members of the Society (in terms Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.6271/2005 of the modified Rules laid down in the Council Society's special resolution on 5.11.04) and then conveniently elected (through a superficial process of proposing and seconding each others names) to the executive committee as Members (refer page 38, item 14 minutes of Council Society) Mr. N.A. O'Brien, Dr. Anil Wilson, Ms. G.R. Hart, Mrs. S. Bolar & Mr. T.W. Phillips in the present Executive Committee have been inducted through this back door procedure."
b) The defendant has further stated in the aforesaid letter that "It has come to my knowledge that a handful of Members of the executive committee of the ASISC met in Hyderabad on 14.6.05 and have demanded withdrawal of my letter written to the Council Society on 31.03.2005. This resolution seems to have been passed under pressure from the same dubious coterie which wants our Association to bow before the Anglo-Indian dominated Council Society at New Delhi. Through their representative Ms. S. Bolar, this coterie is now attempting to spread disaffection and groupism in our Association and engineer a split, if possible."
c) In letter dated 20th June 2005, the Defendant has alleged that "In case you have Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.6271/2005 forgotten I may also remind you that ASISC has a valid and representation in the structure of the Council, mandated by the Memorandum of Association of the Council- Society under clause 5(l)(g)(iii). Mrs. Bolar's claim in her letter on 07.06.2005 that "the Association has no authority to question these issues" (concerning financial improprieties of the Chairman) reeks of her ignorance and callousness towards the Association's responsibilities. She is clearly no more than a stooge of the coterie who is subverting the Association's interest at the behest. In any case, her gross financial irregularities during her tenure as Secretary of ASISC, which was strongly indicted by the finance committee, should not be forgotten."
d) The Defendant further alleged in the aforesaid letter that "Ms. Bolar also has the dubious distinction of working for her self- interest by using the Council's platform and identity. One small instance of this mentality is the manner in which she tried to get the Mysore University affiliated B.Ed., - CISCE course to be confined only to her school, i.e., Innisfree House School, Bangalore, thereby denying the benefits to other Member schools of Karnataka. Since this move was thwarted Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.6271/2005 by the Secretary Mr. Fransis Fanthome in EC Meeting who wanted the benefit to extend to all the Member school as centres, she has turned against him in revenge and aligned herself with the Mr. Neil O'Brien led coterie seeking to settle scores. Every Member of our Association should understand the shrewd motive of Mrs. Bolar and herself motivated action within the Association."
19. On careful perusal of the above said contents, it discloses that the defendant has written Ex.P.1 to his colleague Members and he has stated with regard to various allegations and with regard to financial mismanagements during the tenure of the plaintiff as Secretary -cum- Treasurer. No doubt in Ex.P.1, the defendant has used the words - "Experience also shows that through a back door method of reaching key positions in the Executive committee of the Council Society, many Anglo-Indian persons have been first co- opted by the executive committee as Members of the Society" - are not defamatory and derogatory words. In Ex.P.1, the defendant has further stated that - "Mr. N.A. O'Brien, Dr. Anil Wilson, Ms. G.R. Hart, Mrs. S. Bolar & Mr. T.W. Phillips in the present Executive Committee have been inducted through this back door procedure." In my considered view, the above said fact does not amount to frivolous, unwarranted, derogatory, unparliamentary and irrelevant allegations. As per the say of the Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.6271/2005 defendant, he has contested for the post of Secretary - cum- Treasurer for the period 2003 and he was duly declared as elected to the said post. Admittedly, it is not the case of the plaintiff that she has contested to the post of Secretary -cum- Treasurer between 2000-2003 and she has been declared as elected to the post through secret ballot. Nowhere in the plaint she has stated that she has been elected through a secret ballot representing nearly 900 affiliated schools throughout the country. Under such circumstances, the contention of the defendant that Members of the Executive Committee have been inducted through back door procedure, is not an unwarranted and derogatory words used by the defendant. Further, in Ex.P.1, the defendant has also stated that the Executive Committee of the ASISC met in Hyderabad and have demanded withdrawal of his letter written to the Council on 31-03- 2015. He has stated that the resolution seems to have been passed under a pressure from some dubious coterie which wants his position to bow before the Anglo-Indian dominated Society. Further, he has stated that "Through their representative Ms. S. Bolar, this coterie is now attempting to spread disaffection and groupism in our Association and engineer a split, if possible." Even the above said remark of the defendant is not unwarranted, derogatory and unparliamentary as contended by the plaintiff. At the cost of repetition, I would like to say that the plaintiff has not produced any piece of document to show that the defendant with sole Cont'd..
- 31 - O.S. No.6271/2005 intention and vindictive attitude to tarnish the image of the plaintiff has written Exs.P.1 and P.2.
20. Ex.P.2 is the letter dated 20-06-2005 addressed to the President, ASISC. In the said letter, the defendant has stated that - "Mrs. Bolar's claim in her letter on 07.06.2005 that "the Association has no authority to question these issues" (concerning financial improprieties of the Chairman) reeks of her ignorance and callousness towards the Association's responsibilities." Further, in Ex.P.2, he has stated that - "She is clearly no more than a stooge of the coterie who is subverting the Association's interest at the behest." Further, in Ex.P.2, he has also stated that - "Ms. Bolar also has the dubious distinction of working for her self-interest by using the Council's platform and identity." Lastly, the defendant in Ex.P.2 has contended that - "One small instance of this mentality is the manner in which she tried to get the Mysore University affiliated B.Ed., - CISCE course to be confined only to her school, i.e., Innisfree House School, Bangalore, thereby denying the benefits to other Member schools of Karnataka."
21. On careful perusal of the above said remarks of the defendant, it discloses that the defendant has not made the above said remarks with a sole intention and vindictive attitude to tarnish the image of the plaintiff, - because on perusal of the documents produced by the defendant, it discloses all the facts stated by the Cont'd..
- 32 - O.S. No.6271/2005 defendant in Exs.P.1 and P.2 with regard to the plaintiff are based on the valid and genuine documents.
22. In order to prove the above said allegation, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she has reiterated the plaint averments and she has produced documents which are marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. As I have discussed above, there is no dispute with regard to contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2. Even there is no dispute with regard to filing of the suit in O.S. No.270/2005 by the defendant before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack - wherein the plaintiff is arrayed as defendant No.3. It is pertinent to note there that though P.W.1 has submitted chief- examination by way of affidavit, though she has offered for cross-examination on 20-07-2010 and on 03-01- 2011, thereafter, P.W.1 remained absent and she has not been offered for cross-examination. It is settled principle of law that if a person who is examined on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant has not been offered for cross-examination, his evidence cannot be looked into. In the present case also, when P.W.1 has not been fully offered for cross-examination, her evidence cannot be looked into. When the evidence of P.W.1 is discarded, without any hesitation it is to be held that the averments of the plaint are not supported by oral evidence of the plaintiff.
23. Apart from this, P.W.1 has not adduced the evidence of any of her colleague Members in order to Cont'd..
- 33 - O.S. No.6271/2005 establish that the contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2 in respect of her, are defamatory, derogatory and unparliamentary. Apart from this in the part-heard cross-examination, she has admitted that Ex.D.1 is the inspection report submitted by the Members of the Finance Committee, Association of Schools for the Indian Certificate. Further, she has admitted that the said Members have visited the Association on 23-10-2003 during her tenure as Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the Association. It is the specific case of the defendant that contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2 are based on Ex.D.1. When contents of Ex.D.1 are admitted by P.W.1, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.2 in her favour.
24. In order to resist the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and in his evidence, he has specifically deposed that while he was working as Secretary -cum- Treasurer of ASISC, there were news reports of the of the irregularities by the Chief Executive and Secretary of the Council for the Indian School Certificate. As the Secretary -cum- Treasurer, of the ASISC and naturally being perturbed by the news reports of the irregularities in the functioning of the then Council for Indian School Certificate, he has raised certain issues and addresses letters to the Members of the Association pointing out the undemocratic method adopted in appointing norms/nominating Members to the Council and as a result, the same coterie getting appointed to the Council Cont'd..
- 34 - O.S. No.6271/2005 over and over again. Further, he has deposed that the issues that were raised by him was in the intention of bringing about reforms in the methodology of appointment to the Council and infusing fresh ideas intended for streamlining the education imparted under the ICSE Syllabi. Further, he has deposed that himself and many Members of the Association were shocked in disbelief since the Council funds are contributed by the affiliated Member schools and also by the students. He has deposed that on enquiry, it was revealed that several documents that apart from the Chairman, some of the Members of the Council were also involved in the financial irregularities. Further, he has deposed that though the letters addressed by him related to the standards of academic excellence and education and interests of the Member schools, plaintiff by her letter dated 07-06-2005 took offence and questioned his locus-standi in addressing a letter to the Council. Further, he has deposed that in spite of his letters addressed to the Chairman of the Council neither the chairman of the Council nor any other Member of the Council or ASISC reacted to the same. Further, he has deposed that however, the plaintiff assailed him in a very derogatory manner, questioning his motives and credentials in addressing the letter. Further, he has deposed that Meeting of the Executive Committed of the ASISC had been scheduled on 24-06-2005 at Lucknow for discussion relating to the day-to-day affairs of the Association. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact of Cont'd..
- 35 - O.S. No.6271/2005 having accepted the apology and offer of withdrawal of the above said statement. Further, he has deposed that the plaintiff has sought to gloss over the same by contending that she had only remarked as - "let him apologize and I will see". Further, he has deposed that the conduct of the plaintiff in making him to apologize by assuring to withdraw the above suit and thereafter going back on the same, exposes her malicious conduct of harassing him and continuing with the prosecution of the above suit as well as the criminal case filed against him. Lastly, he has deposed that the plaintiff having called for and receiving the letter of apology and the same having been circulated among the Members of ASISC, the plaintiff is estopped from seeking damages or prosecuting the above suit as well as the criminal cause.
25. In my considered view, the defendant has proved that the plaintiff is estopped from filing and prosecuting the suit as contended in Para Nos.20 to 22 of the written statement, - because the oral evidence of D.W.1 is supported by documentary evidence. Ex.D.1 is the report of inspection of the accounts of the Association of Schools for the Indian School Certificate held on 28-10-2003. In the said report, it was mentioned with regard to financial irregularities during the tenure of the plaintiff as Secretary -cum- Treasurer. Another document dated 23-09-2004 which is also marked as Ex.D.1 which is a letter written by plaintiff to Cont'd..
- 36 - O.S. No.6271/2005 the defendant. Ex.D.2 is one more letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on 26-10-2004. Ex.D.3 is one more letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on 11-01-2005. Ex.D.4 is one more letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on 07-06-2005. Ex.D.5 is the letter dated 31-05-2005 written by the defendant to the Chairman, Council for Indian School Certificate Examination. Ex.D.7 is a letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on 07-06-2005. All the above said documents are pertaining prior to the letter dated 16- 06-2005 and 17-06-2005 which are the subject matters of the present case. So, on the basis of the above said letter correspondence, it discloses that the plaintiff has posed so many questions to the defendant with regard to the alleged financial irregularities as noted in the inspection report which is marked as per Ex.D.1. Ex.D.7 is the letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant and she took as offence and questioned locus standi of the defendant in addressing letter to the Council. On perusal of Ex.D.7, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant is entitled to write what he likes in his individual capacity, but not on behalf of the Association. Further, in the letter, she has stated that the unauthorized action has put the Association in bad light and damaged its standing as an Organization. In fact, the said letter is the cause to the defendant to address letter as per Exs.D.1 and D.2 to his colleague Members as well as to the Chairman of the Association. When the defendant has established the contention of Cont'd..
- 37 - O.S. No.6271/2005 the written statement by producing relevant records, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be termed that contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2 are derogatory, defamatory and unparliamentary.
26. Ex.D.6 is the letter written by the defendant to the Chief Executive and Secretary Council requesting for conveying an emergency General Body Meeting of the Council. Ex.D.8 is also letter written by the defendant to the President of ASISC on 20-06-2005. On careful perusal of the contents of the said documents, it discloses that the financial irregularities taken place during the tenure of Secretary -cum- Treasurer of the plaintiff was discussed in detail in the General Body Meeting. The defendant has also produced minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of ASISC held at Hyderabad on 31-08-2005 which is marked as per Ex.P.11. He has also produced Minutes of the First Executive Committee Meeting of the ASISC for the year 2006 which is marked as per Ex.D.12. On perusal of Ex.D.11, it discloses that the defendant being the Secretary -cum- Treasurer expressed his regard for causing anguish to all the Members for the recent developments. Ex.P.11 is the letter sent by the Association of Schools to the Heads of the Member Schools - wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that the defendant has agreed to unconditional withdraw the cases filed against the Association and in lieu of which, the Executive Committee resolves not to Cont'd..
- 38 - O.S. No.6271/2005 pursue with the suspension proceedings dated 25-06- 2005. In Ex.P.12, it was mentioned that the Executive Committee Members requested Mrs. Bolar, i.e., plaintiff to withdraw the case filed against the defendant in the greater interest of the Association. In Ex.P.12, it is also mentioned that the plaintiff said - 'let the letter of apology reached the Members and then she would see about'. It is mentioned that the Members accepted the decision of the plaintiff and expressed their gladness in settling the problems with applause. Ex.P.13 is a letter written by Rev. Dr. Jose Aikara C.M. to the Members informing with regard to the case filed by the defendant against the Council and the plaintiff against the defendant. It is also mentioned that the Executive Committee requested the defendant to withdraw all cases filed against the Council and give his apology to Mrs. Bolar. Further, in Ex.P.13, it is mentioned that in turn, Mrs. Bolar was also requested and she agreed that she will withdraw the case filed against the defendant. The last document relied on by the defendant is Ex.D.14. It is a letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant on 24-02-2006 - wherein, she has stated that she has not at all agreed that she will withdraw the case which she had filed against the defendant. Further, she has stated that she never did agree to withdraw the case.
27. But on perusal of the documents relied on by the defendant, it discloses that the meeting was held Cont'd..
- 39 - O.S. No.6271/2005 with regard to discussion of financial irregularities with regard to cases instituted by the defendants against the Association and with regard to the case instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Further, it discloses that in the Executive Committee, the plaintiff had agreed to withdrawn the suit in view of the apology letter given by the defendant to the Chairman as well as to the colleague Members. No doubt, the defendant has contended that he has signed the apology letter under pressure, but he has not established the said aspect before this Court. On the other hand, the defendant has established in view of the above said development, the plaintiff has debarred from prosecuting this suit.
28. Even for the sake of argument if we peruse the allegation of the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has not proved the material issue in her favour. Because, the contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2 pertaining to her work as Secretary -cum- Treasurer cannot be termed as defamatory, derogatory and unparliamentary. Apart from this, since P.W.1 has not fully offered himself for cross-examination, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff and her evidence cannot be looked into.
29. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, it was suggested to D.W.1 that he has sent letters Exs.P.1 and P.2 to the colleague Members as well as to the Chairman of the Association with an intention to defame the reputation of the plaintiff, but he has Cont'd..
- 40 - O.S. No.6271/2005 specifically denied the above said suggestion. He has
specifically deposed that he has withdrawn the suit in O.S. No.270/2005 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Cuttack arraying the plaintiff as defendant No.3. Ex.P.3 is the letter written by the defendant to the President and Members of the Executive Committee - wherein, he has stated with reference to his letter dated 31-05-2005, 16-06-2005 and 20-06-2005 to the Council of Members of ASISC. He has stated sorry for causing anguish to all of them. This being the document relied on by the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the defendant has proved that the plaintiff is estopped from filing and prosecuting the suit. Hence, my answer to Issue No.2 is in the 'negative' and Additional Issue No.1 is in the 'affirmative'.
30. ISSUE NOs.3 AND 4 : Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the material issue No.1, the question of loss of man hours suffered by the plaintiff, does not arise. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the letter addressed to all the Members of the Association containing false and frivolous allegations, impairing the reputation of the plaintiff, question of suffering mental agony by the plaintiff does not arise. Even for the sake of discussion if we peruse oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she sustained loss of man hours - thereby damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000-00. Even the plaintiff has not produced Cont'd..
- 41 - O.S. No.6271/2005 any cogent material evidence in order to establish that she has suffered mental agony due to the contents of Exs.P.1 and P.2 and the Exs.P.1 and P.2 affected her reputation.
31. At the time of argument, Advocate for the plaintiff has submitted notes of argument and relied on the ruling reported in AIR 2006 DELHI 300 (Ram Jethmalani -versus- Subramaniam Swamy) - wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the dictum thus:-
"(A) Commission of Inquiry Act (60 of 1952), S. 6 - Commission of inquiry - Offending statements made by defendant as witness in his written submissions against Senior Counsel who cross-examined him - Plea by defendant that while making oral submissions and filing written submissions he was acting as counsel and therefore counsel's privilege was available to him
- Is not tenable - Defendant was not acting as his own counsel but was expousing his cause.
Advocates Act (25 of 1961), S. 35."
32. In my considered view, with due respect to the principles laid down in the above said decision, they are not applicable to the case on hand - because, the facts and circumstances discussed in the above said ruling are entirely different from the facts and circumstances in the case on hand. Viewed from any angle, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.3 Cont'd..
- 42 - O.S. No.6271/2005 and 4 in her favour. Accordingly, my answer to Issue Nos.3 and 4 are in the 'negative'.
33. ISSUE No.5 : For the above said reasons and discussion on Issues 1 to 4 and Additional Issue No.1, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 5th day of December, 2015.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Sheela Bolar 26-10-2009
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of letter dated 16-06-2005. Ex.P.2 : Copy of letter dated 20-06-2005.
Cont'd..
- 43 - O.S. No.6271/2005
Ex.P.3 : Copy of letter dated 26-06-2005.
Ex.P.4 : Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.5 : Letter dated 17-08-2005 issued by Postal
Department.
Ex.P.6 : Death certificate.
Ex.P.7 : Summons issued by Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Court at Cuttack in
O.S. No.270/2005.
Ex.P.8 : Address Statement of plaintiff in
O.S. No.270/2005.
Ex.P.9 : Plaint copy in O.S. No.270/2005.
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT: D.W.1 : Bro. Thomas Thanickal 28-05-2013
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Letter dated 23.09.04 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.D.2 : Letter dated 26.10.04 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.D.3 : Letter dated 11.01.05 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.D.4 : Letter dated 07.06.05 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.D.5 : Office copy of letter dated 31.05.2005
addressed by the defendant to the
Chairman, Council for Indian School
Certificate examination.
Ex.D.6 : Office copy of letter 20.06.2005.
Ex.D.7 : Letter dated 07.06.2005 addressed by the
plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.D.8 : Office copy of letter 20.06.2005 addressed
by the defendant to the President ASISC. Ex.D.9 : Office copy of letter dated 25.06.2005. Ex.D.10 : Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting dated 31.08.2005.
Cont'd..
- 44 - O.S. No.6271/2005
Ex.D.11 : Resolution dated 31.08.2005.
Ex.D.12 : Copy of Minutes of Executive Committee
Meeting dated 11.02.2006.
Ex.D.13 : Office copy of letter dated 13.02.2006 of
Secretary, ASISC addressed to Members. Ex.D.14 : Letter dated 24.02.2006 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ex.D.15 : The Times of India news paper. Ex.D.15(a) : Relevant portion is marked in Ex.D.15. Ex.D.16 : The New Indian Express, Bhuvaneswar. Ex.D.16(a) : Relevant portion is marked at Ex. D.16.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.+ Cont'd..