Delhi District Court
Smt. Sunita Mehta vs Shri Prince Mehta on 11 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR; ADJ (CENTRAL)-11,DELHI
Suit No. 41/08
Unique I.D No. 02401C0079152008
Smt. Sunita Mehta
W/o Shri Anil Mehta
R/o 34/11 (Ground Floor)
Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060
.....Plaintiff
vs.
1 Shri Prince Mehta,
S/o Late Jagat Ram Mehta
2 Smt. Santosh Mehta
W/o Shri Prince Mehta
Both R/o 34/11 (First Floor),
Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060.
3 Shri Mukesh Mehta
S/o Late Jagat Ram Mehta
4 Smt. Jasbir Kaur
W/o Shri Mukesh Mehta
Both R/o 34/11 (Second Floor),
Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060.
And also :
C-8/207, Staff Nurse Quarters,
Railway Hospital,
Punchkuian Road, New Delhi-110001.
.....Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 23.01.2008
Date when reserved for Orders : 16.04.2015
Date of Decision : 11.05.2015
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of a suit filed by the plaintiff for damages. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that defendant No. 1 and 3 are the brothers of the husband of the plaintiff and defendant No. Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 1 /18 2 and 4 are the wives of defendant No. 1 and 3. According to the plaintiff the defendants have been harassing her and her husband for quite some time so as to compel them to give a part of the ground floor of the property No. 34/11, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi to the defendants.
2. According to the plaintiff in order to defame her defendants No. 3 and 4 with the support of other defendants i.e. defendant No. 1 and 2 have been defaming the plaintiff by harming her reputation for quite some time by hurling choicest of abuses and defamatory words against her which were heard by the neighbours and the people at large.
3. According to the plaintiff when on 28-08-2007, at about 10 p.m when the plaintiff entered her house after meeting her parents on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, defendant No. 3 and 4 started abusing her. They threw the flowerpot on the husband of the plaintiff and after 2 minutes they came down and started knocking the door of the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 uttered the following words :
"Ye randi aise nahi maanegi. Is Bahanchodi ko to main iske gaon jakar nanga karoonga. Is Kalu bahanchod ko gali main nikal kar maar."
4. Defendant No. 4 called the plaintiff as "keep" of one Mahabir and uttered as under :
"Ye Mahabir ki Rakhail yahan nash karwane aai hai."
5. According to the plaintiff after 2 days defendant No. 4 repeated the same words and continued to do so for about 15 minutes before going to her duty. In the evening of 22-09-2007, defendant No. 3 uttered defamatory words against the husband of the plaintiff in front of his young son and daughter by saying :
"Tera sala teri gaand maar gaya tu kya kar raha tha. Wo teri gaand maar gaya."Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 2 /18
6. The plaintiff got ashamed on hearing these words in front of her children. When the husband and son of the plaintiff went to the market, defendant No. 3 waited there for some time on the pretext of cleaning his scooter and thereafter threw his scooter on the ground, called defendant No. 4 and uttered the following words :
Ye randi nahin manegi ye tujhe kya kya kah rahi hai. Tu niche aa."
7. Thereafter defendant No. 3 shouted at the plaintiff :
"Oh randi bula le apne bhaiyon ko teri maa randi ko bhi nahin chhodunga. Randi hamare ghar aa ghusi hai. Tere to poore khandan ko ander karwakar chhodunga."
8. When the plaintiff told defendant No. 3 that her brother did not live there and she lives with her husband and her husband has done nothing against him then defendant No. 3 said :
"Tere Kitne Khasam hai, tu to randi hain."
9. Thereafter according to the plaintiff defendant No. 3 climbed up the stairs and met with the other defendants and they all started talking in low voice but the same was audible to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 asked defendant No. 1 not to intervene and said that he would make sure to get the plaintiff behind the bar. The plaintiff realized that all the defendants were hatching a deep rooted conspiracy to harm her and her family.
10. On 28-09-2007, at about 9 p.m when the husband of the plaintiff came from his factory, defendant No. 3 dashed his scooter at his car and defendant No. 4 started beating him in the car itself. Defendant No. 4 said "Kutte bahar aa. Tujhe bahoot din ho gaye". When the husband of the plaintiff came out of his car, defendant No. 3 hit him with his helmet. Hearing the voice, the plaintiff and her daughter came out and on seeing Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 3 /18 them, both the defendants ran inside the house of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 started ransacking one bed room. They damaged the furniture, temple and other articles. For abut 20 minutes they used dirty words and defendant No. 3 uttered as follows :
"Oh randi teri to main gaand faandunga tere dekh randi ab main teri kya hall karta hun, main teri maa randi ko bhi gaand faar kar chhodunga. Tere gaon jakar tujhe nanga karunga. Dekho bahanchodo main tumehe kaise ander karwata hun."
11. When the police came defendant No. 3 told them that they were beating him. But when the plaintiff told the entire story to the police, defendant No. 1 told the police infront of the neighbours that the plaintiff was telling a lie and said :
"Tu apne ko dekh kaise aai hai. Teri pol kholun. Kya inke saamne saara mohalla teri badmashi jantai hai."
12. According to the plaintiff on 08-11-2007, defendant No. 3 was sitting on his scooter in the courtyard and was combing his hair and continued to stare with foul gestures towards the daughter of the plaintiff who was in the bed room. The daughter of the plaintiff started weeping and asked the plaintiff to shut the door. The daughter of the plaintiff had got depressed and she has lost charm in the studies and does not got out of the house.
13. According to the plaintiff on 18-11-2007, at about 8 p.m. the plaintiff and her husband were watching TV and on seeing their window open, the defendant No. 3 started talking rubbish by saying :-
"Dekhta Jao main tumhe kaise ander karwata hun. Tu to bahanchod under hoga. Ye bachanchod tavayaf yahan laa rakhi hai.Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 4 /18
Iski bahan tavayaf iski maa tavayaf poore moholle ko batanungaa ki bahanchod tera gabroo kahara hokar tere se dhandha karvata hai. Randi tu dekhiti Jaa main kaise teri gaand faadta hun. Tujhe Ghar se bahar nikalne layak nahin chhodunga."
14. According to the plaintiff on 25-11-2007, at about 8 a.m when the younger sister of the plaintiff alongwith her two children and driver came to meet her for trade fair, defendant No. 3 shouted and asked from the son of the plaintiff's sister that "oa tum kaise ghus rahe hoo. Tum Kaun Hoo." Thereafter defendant No. 3 came down and started knocking the door of the plaintiff and uttered "Aik randhi pahle thi aik or aa gai bahanchodo ko kitne paisa chhaiai."
15. On 30-01-2007, at about 6 p.m when the plaintiff alongwith her husband and brother entered the house after appearing in the court of Sh. P.L. Suri SEM Central, Delhi, the defendant No. 3 started giving filthy abuses. Firstly he spate upon the plaintiff and thereafter he uttered "Randi aa gai dhandha karke kitne paise laai.". Thereafter defendant No. 3 asked the brother of the plaintiff as follows :
"Aa gaya randi ka dalal. Hamare ghar me ghusne ke jarurat nahin hai."
16. On this brother of the plaintiff felt ashamed and asked the neighbures to have pity on his sister. According to the plaintiff whenever she spread wet clothes the defendants dropped wanter on them threw pipe and this was seen by all the neighboures. Whenever the plaintiff asked them not to do so they asked the plaintiff to keep shut and be ashamed of indulging her husband in bad occupation.
17. The plaintiff / her husband / her brother lodged complaint with the police in respect of the incident dated 8, 18 and 30th of November 2007 but no action has been taken against the defendants.
Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 5 /1818. According to the plaintiff she and her husband have been falsely implicated in a case bearing FIR No. 23/2007 U/s 323/341/34 IPC and in another case U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. According to the plaintiff her husband had filed a civil suit for injunction and a criminal complaint against the defendants to vindicate the truth. The plaintiff also filed a criminal complaint against the defendants U/s 500/504/506/509/34 IPC which is pending in the Court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, MM Delhi.
19. According to the plaintiff the defendants have defamed and spoiled her reputation not only before her children but in the entire locality and the defamatory words were heard by all the people of the locality and other persons who happened to be there when the defamatory words were uttered.
20. The defendants have contested the suit by filing their joint written statement. The defendants in their written statement have taken various preliminary objections contending therein that; the present case is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the defendant No. 4 against the plaintiff and her husband; that the suit is an abuse of the process of law.
21. On merits, it has been stated that the possession of part of ground floor is in the possession of defendant No. 3 and 4 but the plaintiff and her husband are attempting to forcefully taking the possession of the entire ground floor and for that purpose they have filed false and frivolous cases and lodged false reports. It is stated that the property bearing No. 34/11, Old Rajinder Nagar, belonged to late Sh. Jagat Ram Mehta who died intestate and the property devolved upon Prince Mehta, Anil Mehta, Mukesh Mehta and Mrs. Neena Mahendru inequal shares and is still undivided.
22. It is denied that the defendant No. 3 and 4 with tacit support of defendant No. 1 has been harassing the plaintiff and using abusive and defamatory words which are being heard by the neighboures and public at large. The incident dated 28-8-2007, is denied by the defendants. It is Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 6 /18 denied that the words as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint were uttered by the defendants. The defendants have also denied the incident of 22-09-2007. It is submitted that the husband of the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit for injunction against the defendants but no interim injunction was granted by the court. It is further stated that the husband of the plaintiff quarreled with defendant No. 3 on account of which the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 3 were involved in a case U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the husband of the plaintiff in connivance with the plaintiff and her brother prepared a false and fabricated will of late Sh. Jagat Ram Mehta father of defendant No. 1 and 3 and filed the copy of the same in the MCD.
23. It is submitted that the said will filed before the MCD by the plaintiff is a registered will whereas in the suit filed before Ms. Sonali Gupta, Civil Judge, Delhi, there is no mention of the said will. It is further stated that the plaintiff, here husband and her brother are making false accusation just for the sake of grabbing the ground floor of property No. 34/11, Old Rajinder Nagar,
24. It is stated that on 28-09-2007, at about 9:45 p.m when defendant No. 4 came out of the house for going on duty, at that time Anil Mehta who was under the influence of liquor started abusing and beating defendant No. 4 and hit defendant No. 4 with a helmet and also gave a fist blow on the face of the defendant as a result of which two teeth of the defendant No. 4 broke. In the meanwhile plaintiff came from behind and pulled the hair of defendant No. 4 and slapped her. A case U/s 323/341/34 IPC was then registered vide FIR No. 231/07, which was lateron converted into 325/341/34 IPC.
25. The defendants have also denied the incident of 18-11-2007, and 25-11-2007. The defendants have also denied the incident of 30-11-2007. It is denied that the plaintiff/her husband/her brother have lodged a complaint with the police in respect of the incidents dated 8, 18 and 30 th Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 7 /18 November, 2007 but no action was taken. It is denied that the defendants defamed and spoiled the reputation of the plaintiff before here children and entire locality. It is submitted that all the allegations in the plaint are false and frivolous and made only with a view to grab the ground floor portion of the property.
26. No replication has been filed by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15-01-2010:
1 Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD 2 Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages for defamation as prayed? OPD 4 Relief.
27. The plaintiff has examined herself as PW 1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW 1/X. No document has been exhibited or proved by the plaintiff in her evidence. After examining herself, she closed here evidence.
28. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 3 Mukesh Mehta appeared in the witness box and he filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. D3W-1/A. He has also not proved any document on record.
29. I have heard the counsel for the parties, and perused the records of the case.
30. My issue-wise findings are as follows :
Findings on Issue No. 2Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
31. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendants. But nothing has been stated by the defendants as to why the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakh and has affixed the total Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 8 /18 court fees of Rs. 12,425/- which is the proper court fee to be filed in respect to the claim of Rs. 10 Lakh as per the court fee schedule. This issue is, therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Findings on Issue No. 1 and 31 Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages for defamation as prayed? OPD
32. Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 3 are inter related so they both are being taken up together. Both the counsels have argued on the lines of their respective pleadings/evidence.
33. It is urged by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have been using abusive and defamatory words against he plaintiff in the presence of the neigbours and public at large. It is further urged that the defendants have even used defamatory words against the plaintiff in the presence of her children and brother.
34. On the other hand, it is urged by the counsel for the defendants that all the allegations are false and frivolous and the present suit is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR bearing No. 231/07 registered against the plaintiff and her husband. It is further urged that all the allegations are vague.
35. From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the bone of contention between them is the joint property bearing No. 34/11, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, partition suit in respect of which is pending in the Hon'ble High Court which has been filed by the defendant No. 3.
36. Now according to the plaintiff the first incident took place on 28-8-2007, at about 10 p.m. The plaintiff has stated about the incident in para 3 of her affidavit which is Ex. PW 1/X. When she was cross examined in regard to this incident she stated as follows :
"it is correct that I had filed a complaint Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 9 /18 under Domestic Violence Act against the defendants which was pending in the court of Ms. Twinkle Wadhwa, Ld. MM, Delhi. I narrated all the facts mentioned in the present suit to my counsel at the time of filing of my complaint before the court of Ld MM. It is wrong to suggest that neither I nor my husband had mentioned in any of the previous litigation regarding the incident which has taken place on 28-08-2007. I had not made any police report regarding the incident dated 28-08-2007. I do not remember if I had mentioned the words from point A to A in para 3 of my affidavit in any of the previous litigation. Vol. I conveyed this to my previous counsel. The incident dated 28-08-2007, had taken place in the house situated at Old Rajinder Nagar. It is correct that the said house is situated in thickly populated area. There is a gali in front of the house but there is no park. It is correct that the front portion of my house is open It is correct that if somebody bang the door forcibly or throw a flower pot the neighbours are bound to listen the noise. The neighbours gathered after hearing the noise on 28-8-2007. They again gathered on 30-08-2007 when similar words were uttered. More than 100 persons were gathered but I cannot give the name of any of them. After 28-8-2007, next incident had taken Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 10 /18 place in September 2007 i.e on 28-09-2007."
37. PW 1 admitted in her cross examination, the certified copy of her application U/s 18 & 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which was filed by her as Ex. PW 1/D 2 and the affidavit filed alongwith the application as Ex. PW 1/D3. In regard to the incident dated 28-8-2007 from point A to A as mentioned in her affidavit Ex. PW 1/X in para 3 no such allegations have been mentioned by the plaintiff in Ex. PW 1/D-2 and Ex. PW 1/D-3. The plaintiff has not made any police report in regard to the incident dated 28-8-2007. According to the plaintiff many persons had gathered at the time of the incident but she has not named a single person who was present there and witnessed the incident. The plaintiff has not even examined her husband on whom according to the plaintiff the pot was thrown by defendants No. 3 and 4. So in these circumstances, the plaintiff in my opinion could not prove the alleged incident of 28-8-2007 as stated by her in her affidavit Ex. PW 1/X.
38. In her affidavit Ex. PW 1/X, the plaintiff has again narrated the incident which took place on 22-09-2007. According to the plaintiff the defamatory words narrated in para 4 of the affidavit were uttered by defendant No. 3 against her husband in front of her younger son and daughter. But the plaintiff has not examined her husband, son and daughter for the reasons best known to her. It is apparent that the plaintiff was not present when the words were uttered by the defendant No. 3 against her husband. So in these circumstances, the testimony of the plaintiff as far as the defamatory words alleged to have been used by the defendant No. 3 in the evening of 22-09-2007 is hearsay in nature and the plaintiff has again failed to prove the incident which according to her took place on 22-09-2007.
39. According to the plaintiff the third incident took place on 28-09-2007, at about 9 p.m as mentioned by her in para 5 of her affidavit Ex. PW 1/X. The incident which took place on 28-09-2007 is as follows :
Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 11 /18"That I further say that, on 28-09-2007, at about 9:00 p.m when my husband came from his factory in Sonepat on his car the defendant No. 3 dashed his scooter in his car and the defendant No. 4 started beating him in the car itself. The defendant No. 4 said :-
"Kutte bahar aa. Tujhe bahoot din ho gaye".
When my husband came out of his car, the defendant No. 3 hitted his helmet on him. But the same boomeranged on the same.
Hearing the voice, I and my daughter came out. Seeing this, both the said defendants ran inside the house of mine. The defendant No. 3 started ransacking one bed room. They damaged the furniture, temple and other articles. For abut 20 minutes, they used dirty words which a woman feel ashamed in repeating them. The defendant No. 3 uttered:-
"Oh randi teri to main gaand faandunga tere dekh randi ab main teri kya hall karta hun, main teri maa randi ko bhi gaand faar kar chhodunga. Tere gaon jakar tujhe nanga karunga. Dekho bahanchodo main tumehe kaise ander karwata hun."
Thereafter, they switched off the inverter in the bed room and due to which the light in the entire house went off and there was dark every where.
Thereafter, when the police came, the defendant No. 3 told them that they were beating him. When I told the entire story to the police, the defendant No. 1 told the police in the lane in front of the neighbours that I Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 12 /18 was telling a lie and he said :
"Tu apne ko dekh kase aai hai. Teri pol Kholun. Kya inke saamne saara moholla teri badmashi janta hai."
Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 and 2 started having a cheap funny. ''
40. In her cross examination she has stated that :
"the incident had taken place with my husband on the road outside of my house. At that time I was watching TV and after hearing the noise I reached there. When I reached there defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 pushed my husband inside and entered my house forcibly. An FIR has been registered against me and my husband U/s 325 IPC with regard to the incident dated 28-09-2007. It is correct that FIR Ex. PW 1/D-1 is the same which has been registered against me and my husband."
41. Now according to the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 had called her husband outside the car and defendant No. 3 thereafter hit her husband with helmet. So till the time this incident happened, the plaintiff was nowhere in the picture but was in the house and she only came out of the house after hearing the noise, meaning thereby, she had not seen what transpired between defendant No. 3, defendant No. 4 and her husband prior to her coming out. The husband of the plaintiff would have been the best witness to tell as to what happened prior to the plaintiff coming out. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, her husband has not come forward to depose.
42. Now according to the plaintiff the defendants ran inside her house and damaged the furniture etc and used filthy words. But on the contrary Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 13 /18 an FIR has been registered against the plaintiff and her husband U/s 325 IPC with regard to the incident which took place on 28-09-2007. According to the defendants it was the plaintiff and her husband who had given beatings to the defendant No. 4 which resulted in the registration of the FIR Ex. PW 1/D-1.
43. Defendant No. 3 has appeared in the witness box and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D3W -1/A wherein he has narrated about the incident of 28-09-2007. Defendant No. 3 has not been cross examined in respect of the incident dated 28-09-2007 as mentioned by him in para 4 of his affidavit Ex. D3W-1/A. The contention made by the defendants have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. So again the plaintiff has not been able to prove the incident of 28-09-2007 even by preponderance of probability.
44. According to the plaintiff the next incident took place on 8-11-2007 when defendant No. 3 was sitting on his scooter and started staring at her daughter and made foul gestures. The daughter of the plaintiff started weeping and got depressed and lost charm in studies. Now again this incident has not been witnessed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not even mentioned the time when the incident took place and there is also no reason as to why her daughter has not appeared in the witness box when the incident had taken place with her. In her cross examination the plaintiff has stated that she has lodged the report in Rajinder Nagar Police Station about the incident but no report has been produced by her on record.
45. Now when the things had gone to such a pass and the parties were not seeing each other eye to eye, I fail to understand why no complaint was made about the incident dated 8-11-2007 and what prevented the plaintiff from producing her daughter in the court so as to narrate about the incident. So again in my opinion, the plaintiff has not been able to substantiate her claim about the incident which according to her took Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 14 /18 place on 8-11-2007.
46. According to the plaintiff the next incident took place on 18-11-2007 at about 8 p.m when she and her husband were watching TV and on seeing the window open the defendant no. 3 started talking rubbish as follows :
"Dekhta Jao main tumhe kaise ander karwata hun. Tu to bahanchod under hoga. Ye bachanchod tavayaf yahan laa rakhi hai. Iski bahan tavayaf iski maa tavayaf poore moholle ko batanungaa ki bahanchod tera gabroo kahara hokar tere se dhandha karvata hai. Randi tu dekhiti Jaa main kaise teri gaand faadta hun. Tujhe Ghar se bahar nikalne layak nahin chhodunga."
47. In her cross examination she has stated that the incident dated 18-11-2007, was witnessed by the neighboures. She further stated that she was inside the house and cannot say as to who were the neighbours who heard the talks of defendant No. 3 She has again not reported the matter to the police or to the S.E.M. before whom the proceedings U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C were pending in which defendants were also the party. So again the plaintiff has not named a single neighbour who was present there despite having seen their presence. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the incident of 18-11-2007.
48. The next incident took place on 25-11-2007, at about 8 a.m when the younger sister of the plaintiff alongwith her two children and driver came to meet her for trade fair. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 3 cried from above and then asked her young son and said :-
"Oa tum kaise ghus rahe hoo. Tum Kaun Hoo."
The said boy silently came inside the house. Thereafter, the defendant No. 3 came down from the staircase, started knocking the door Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 15 /18 and uttered :-
"Aik randi pahle thi aik or aa gai bahanchodo ko kitne paisa chaiai."
49. In her cross examination with regard to this incident it is stated by the plaintiff that this incident had taken place inside the house and at that time she was sitting in the drawing room with her sister and she does not know whether this incident was witnessed by any neighbour or not.
50. First of all the plaintiff for the reasons best known to her had not named her sister who had come to her house and again what prevented her from producing her sister to depose about the incident. As already discussed hereinabove, the parties have been booked U/s 107/150 Cr.P.C but again no report of this incident has been filed by the plaintiff before the SEM or any other authority. The plaintiff has herself admitted that the incident had taken place inside the house and has not been witnessed by any of the neighbour. So there is no corroboration to this incident, despite the plaintiff having an opportunity to produce her sister in order to corroborate the incident which took place with the son of the sister of the plaintiff.
51. According to the plaintiff the next incident took place on 30-11-2007 at about 6 p.m when she alongwith her husband and brother entered in the house after appearing in the court of Sh. P.L. Suri SEM, Central Delhi when defendant no. 3 gave filthy abuses as follows :
"Randi aa gai dhandha karke kitne paise laai."
Thereafter defendant No. 3 asked her brother namely Ravinder as under :
Aa gaya randi ka dalal. Hamare ghar me ghusne ke jarurat nahin nai.".
52. In her cross examination she stated that she has lodged complaint with the Court of SEM and PS Rajinder Nagar about the incident of Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 16 /18 30-11-2007. She further stated in her cross examination that "I have not brought any copy of the application filed by me in the Court of SEM regarding the incident of 30-11-2007. I do not remember whether I had filed that application." She has further stated that the incident of 25-11-2007 and 30-11-2007, had taken place in the presence of 50-60 neighbours but she does not remember the name of any of those neighbours. So the plaintiff is blowing hot and cold at the same time and she is not sure as to whether she has filed any complaint with regard to the above incident or not. If 50-60 neighbours were present at the time of the incident then what prevented the plaintiff from naming a single neighbour who was present at the time of the incident.
53. The plaintiff has again failed to substantiate her contention with regard to the incident which according to her took place on 30-11-2007. It is also pertinent to mention her that the plaintiff has not even named here brother and has also failed to produce him as a witness who could have corroborated her testimony. So the testimony of the plaintiff with regard to the incident as mentioned by her in her affidavit Ex. PW 1/X has not been corroborated. The plaintiff has failed to produce a single witness who could have corroborated her story with regard to the allegations of abuses and defamatory statements having been made by the defendants. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the incident of defamation as alleged by her, both the issues are, therefore decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
54. For the purpose of slander there has to be a third party communication which is not there in the present case. According to the plaintiff the defendants have used abusive and defamatory words against her in the presence of her neighbour, her husband and her children but for the reasons best known to the plaintiff none of them has appeared as a witness to corroborate the version of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff will have no defamation recourse since none other then the plaintiff and the Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 17 /18 defendants heard the slander.
55. Relief In view of the above facts and circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants is dismissed. No order of cost. Decree Sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR)
On 11.05.2015 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit No. 41/08 Page no. 18 /18