Delhi District Court
Yogesh Kumar vs Sudha on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS AUNRADHA JINDAL, ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH,
NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 135/22
YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA
CNR No. DLST03-000228-2022
1. Yogesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Dharmbir Singh
R/o G-248, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110080.
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sudha
W/o Shri Ramesh Chand
2. Shri Gajender Singh
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
3. Sh. Nagender Singh
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
All are residents of :-
G-249, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi - 110080
.....DEFENDANTS
CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 1/15
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF Rs. 2,00,000/-
Date of institution : 03.02.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 16.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.07.2025
JUDGMENT
The Case
1. This judgment shall dispose of the suit for recovery of damages filed by the plaintiff, Shri Yogesh Kumar, against the defendants. The parties are close relatives and neighbours. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a campaign of defamation against him and his family by spreading malicious rumours that they practice "black magic" (Kala Jadu) and were involved in cutting the hair of a child from the defendants' family for a ritual sacrifice ("Bali"). Claiming immense harm to his reputation and mental agony, the plaintiff seeks damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. The present suit was instituted on 03.02.2022. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement, along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The said application was heard and dismissed by CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 2/15 this court vide order dated 16.02.2023, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the veracity of the allegations was a matter of trial.
3. Subsequently, on 20.03.2023, this court framed eight issues based on the pleadings of the parties. The matter was referred to mediation on 25.10.2023, but no settlement could be reached. Thereafter, the parties were directed to lead their respective evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, his mother Smt. Rajkumari as PW-2, and his aunt Smt. Prakashi Devi as PW-3. The defendants examined themselves as DW-1 (Smt. Sudha), DW-2 (Shri Gajender Singh), and DW-3 (Shri Nagender Singh). After the conclusion of evidence, final arguments were heard.
Plaintiff's Case
4. The plaintiff pleads that he is a well-qualified engineer and, along with his family, enjoys a very good reputation in their locality of Sangam Vihar, where they have resided for over thirty years. The defendants are his aunt (defendant no. 1) and cousin brothers (defendants no. 2 and 3), who reside in the adjacent house.
5. The plaintiff's grievance is that in May 2021, the defendants, particularly defendant no. 1, began spreading false and defamatory rumours that the plaintiff's family practices black magic. It was further rumoured that they CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 3/15 had cut the hair of defendant no. 2's young son, Mayank, for a ritual sacrifice, endangering the child's life. These rumours allegedly spread throughout the locality and among relatives, causing immense humiliation and tarnishing the family's reputation.
6. The plaintiff claims to have confronted defendant no. 2, Shri Gajender Singh, over the phone on multiple dates in May 2021, and recorded these conversations. He alleges that defendant no. 2 admitted to the rumours being spread, attributing the source to a "Nam Nikalne Wala" (a fortune- teller). Despite the plaintiff's efforts, including filing a police complaint on 26.05.2021 and sending a legal notice dated 12.06.2021, the defendants did not cease their defamatory campaign. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for loss of reputation.
Defendant's Case
7. The defendants, in their joint written statement, have vehemently denied all allegations. They term the suit a "self-invented and concocted story" and assert that they never spread any such rumours. They contend that the plaintiff is quarrelsome, egoistic, and has filed this false suit to settle a personal score and extort money.
CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 4/15
8. They claim that the plaintiff repeatedly called defendant no. 2 to provoke him and create false evidence through recorded conversations. They have denied the contents of the legal notice and have raised several preliminary objections, including that the suit is barred by limitation, is not properly valued, is bad for misjoinder of parties, and discloses no cause of action.
Replication
9. In his replication, the plaintiff has denied the defendants' allegations and has reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has denied that the suit is filed with any ulterior motive and has reiterated that the defendants' actions have caused him grave harm.
Issues for Determination
10.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for determination on 20.03.2023:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of damages for an amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? (OPP)
2. Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action? (OPD) CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 5/15
3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? (OPD)
4. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? (OPD)
5. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
6. Whether the present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (OPD)
7. Whether the suit has not been verified properly? (OPD)
8. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? (OPD) Plaintiff's Evidence
11.The plaintiff, Shri Yogesh Kumar (PW-1), in his evidence affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), reiterated the contents of the plaint. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in his entire suit and affidavit, he had not named any specific independent person (neighbor or relative) to whom the defendants had made the alleged defamatory statements. He also conceded that during the recorded telephonic conversations, defendant no. 2 never admitted to spreading the rumors himself, but only attributed them to another person.
CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 6/15
12.Smt. Rajkumari (PW-2), the plaintiff's mother, tendered her affidavit (Ex. PW2/A). However, during her cross- examination, she stated, "It is correct that I do not know the contents of my affidavit of evidence Ex. PW2/A." This admission completely erodes the evidentiary value of her testimony.
13.Smt. Prakashi Devi (PW-3), the plaintiff's aunt, tendered her affidavit (Ex. PW3/A). Similarly, during her cross- examination, she stated, "I am illiterate. I have no knowledge about the evidence by way of affidavit on which I have put my signature... It is correct that Yogesh had told me to depose before the court and therefore, I have come to the court for the same." This testimony is also rendered unreliable.
Defendant's Evidence
14.Smt. Sudha (DW-1), in her evidence affidavit (Ex. DW1/A), denied all allegations. During her cross- examination, she too stated that she did not know what was written in her affidavit and had signed it on her advocate's instructions.
15.Shri Gajender Singh (DW-2), in his evidence affidavit (Ex. DW2/A), denied spreading any rumors. He admitted that the plaintiff had called him repeatedly. He stated that the plaintiff was vexing him and trying to provoke him.
CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 7/15
16.Shri Nagender Singh (DW-3), in his evidence affidavit (Ex. DW3/A), also denied the allegations. He stated that he first came to know about the allegations of black magic from the legal notice sent by the plaintiff.
Final Arguments
17.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the statements attributed to the defendants are defamatory per se. It was contended that the testimony of PW-1, supported by the CD of conversations and the police complaint, is sufficient to prove the case. The damage to the reputation of a well- educated person and his family is immense and warrants the damages claimed.
18.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case. The foundational element of defamation, i.e., publication to a third party, has not been established. No independent witness was examined. The plaintiff's own witnesses, PW- 2 and PW-3, disowned their affidavits, making their testimony worthless. The suit is a result of personal enmity and is an abuse of the process of law.
CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 8/15 Analysis and Findings
19.I have carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence on record, and the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for both parties. My findings on each issue are as follows:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of damages for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? (OPP)
20.This is the principal issue, and the burden of proof was entirely on the plaintiff. To succeed in a suit for defamation, the plaintiff must prove three essential elements: (i) the statement was defamatory, (ii) it referred to the plaintiff, and (iii) it was published to a third party.
21.While the alleged statements about "black magic" are undoubtedly defamatory per se and refer to the plaintiff's family, the plaintiff's case falters completely on the third and most crucial element: Publication. The plaintiff was required to prove, through credible evidence, that the defendants actually communicated these defamatory statements to at least one third person.
22.The plaintiff's evidence in this regard is woefully inadequate. He has not examined a single independent witness, be it a neighbor, or any other person from the locality, to testify that they heard the defendants making CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 9/15 these statements. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not named any such person in his plaint or affidavit. This is a gaping hole in the plaintiff's case. A suit for defamation cannot succeed based on the plaintiff's mere feeling that his reputation has been harmed; he must prove the act that caused the harm, which is the publication of the defamatory words.
23.The plaintiff's attempt to buttress his case through his mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3) backfired spectacularly. Both witnesses, during their cross-examination, admitted their ignorance of the contents of their own evidence affidavits, rendering their testimony completely unreliable and inadmissible. It appears they were produced as tutored witnesses, which severely undermines the plaintiff's credibility.
24.The CD containing the recorded conversation (Ex. PW1/10)/Transcript of CD having conversation between plaintiff and defendant no. 2, also does not advance the plaintiff's case. As admitted by PW-1 himself, defendant no. 2 never admitted to spreading the rumor. He only attributed it to a third person, which is hearsay. The evidence does not establish that the defendants themselves published the defamatory statements.
25.In conclusion, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to establish a claim of defamation. The essential ingredient of publication has not CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 10/15 been proven. The edifice of a defamation suit cannot be built on the sands of hearsay and the testimony of discredited witnesses. This issue is, therefore, decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action? (OPD)
26.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. This court, vide its detailed order dated 16.02.2023, has already dismissed the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was filed on the very same ground. It was held that the averments in the plaint, which allege the spreading of malicious rumors about "black magic," do disclose a bundle of facts that give the plaintiff a right to sue. The defendants have not presented any new material during the trial to persuade the court to alter this finding. A cause of action is a matter of pleading, and the plaint clearly pleads one. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 3:
Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? (OPD) CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 11/15
27.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. A party alleging suppression of material facts must specify what facts were suppressed and how they were material to the case. The defendants have made a vague and general allegation in their written statement but have failed to point out any specific material fact that the plaintiff concealed. During the entire course of the trial, no such suppression was brought to light. The defendants have failed to discharge their burden. This issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 4:
Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? (OPD)
28.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The present suit is for compensation for slander (spoken defamatory words). As per Article 76 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for such a suit is one year from the date when the words are spoken. The plaintiff has alleged that the defamatory rumors were spread in May 2021. The suit was instituted on 03.02.2022, which is well within the one-year limitation period. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendants.
CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 12/15 Issue No. 5:
Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
29.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The plaintiff has sought damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. For the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the suit has been valued at this amount, and the appropriate ad valorem court fee has been affixed on the plaint. The defendants have not shown how this valuation is incorrect. The valuation appears to be proper as per the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the Court Fees Act, 1870. This issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 6:
Whether the present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? (OPD)
30.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The defendants have raised two objections: (a) misjoinder of defendants no. 1 and 3, and (b) non-joinder of the alleged "Nam Nikalne Wala"(the fortune teller). The plaintiff's case is that all three defendants were involved in a concerted effort to defame him. As per Order I Rule 3 CPC, all persons may be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of the same act or transaction is alleged to exist. Since the plaint alleges a common act of defamation, there is no misjoinder. As for CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 13/15 non-joinder, the plaintiff's grievance is against the defendants for allegedly publishing the rumors. The source of their alleged belief (the fortune-teller) is not a necessary party for the adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants. This issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 7:
Whether the suit has not been verified properly? (OPD)
31.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The defendants have taken a bald plea that the suit is not properly verified but have failed to point out any specific defect in the verification clause of the plaint that contravenes the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 CPC. In the absence of any specific defect being pointed out, this issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 8:
Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? (OPD)
32.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.2,00,000/-. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court extends up to Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, this court has the requisite CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 14/15 pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. This issue is decided against the defendants.
Relief:
33.In view of the findings on the issues, particularly the plaintiff's failure to prove the core ingredient of 'publication' under Issue No. 1, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of damages. While the allegations, if true, were serious, the plaintiff has failed to prove them in accordance with the law.
34.The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
35.In the facts and circumstances of the case, especially considering that the parties are close relatives and the evidence led by both sides was unsatisfactory, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
36.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 16.07.2025.
(ANURADHA JINDAL)
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South)
Digitally Saket Courts, New Delhi
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date: CS SCJ 135/22 YOGESH KUMAR Vs. SUDHA 15/15
2025.07.16
16:25:45
+0530