Delhi District Court
Devender Kumar Gupta vs Ashok Aggarwal on 25 September, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ADJ:
ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
CS NO:26/6/99
DEVENDER KUMAR GUPTA
S/O DR. R.N. GUPTA
R/O 107/9, KISHAN GARH,
VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI. ............ PLAINTIFF
vs.
1. ASHOK AGGARWAL , CHIEF EDITOR
2. AJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, EDITOR
AMAR UJALA DAILY NEWS PAPER
6th FLOOR, INS BUILDING, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI110001
3. M/s AMAR UJALA PRESS, SIKANDRA ROAD,
AGRA. .............. DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 23.12.1999
Date of hearing : 22.09.2009
Date of judgment : 25.09.2009
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 10 LAC AS DAMAGES AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. As per pleadings case of the plaintiff is that he is founder of a registered society namely Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society. This society is said to be running 14 Technical Education Institutes in U.P., Delhi and Haryana since 1994 in the field of Medical Law, Pharmacy and Engineering. It contd/.......
2 is said to be having affiliation with several universities and is recognised by Technical Education Board. It is case of plaintiff that owing to remarkable progress of society in the field of education most of its competitor became jealous and hatched a conspiracy against the plaintiff society. It is claimed that defendant No.1 & 2 who are chief editor and editor of Defendant No.3 Newspaper Amar Ujala conspired with Vice Chancellor of B.R. Amedkar University, Agra namely Mr. Manzoor Ahmed its Deputy Registerar Mr. V.N. Singh and Director of Dau Dayal Institute Agra Dr. G.C. Sharma to defame plaintiff.
2. It is case of plaintiff that Mr. Manzoor Ahmed demanded illegal gratification for continuing its affiliation for plaintiff's institute and on plaintiff's refusal to obliged him, he instigated the students of plaintiff's Anupam College of Engineering Etemadpur at Agra and got a false complaint lodged for alleged increase in fees, even though there was no such increase. He deputed Dr.G.C. Sharma and Sh.V. N. Singh to hold an enquiry against plaintiff's contd/.......
3 institute. Both of them visited the institute on 23.10.99 at 4:30 PM and with disclosing their identity they started making enquiries aimed at defaming the plaintiff's society. Thereafter the enquiry which was conducted at the back of plaintiff resulted into a false report which was filed before the aforesaid VC who in turned lodged an FIR with PS Etemadpur Agra. Upon this plaintiff had to applied for anticipatory bail in Delhi. AT this stage Defendant No.1 and 2 joined the conspiracy and started publishing false and defamatory news items in the newspaper. One such news items is of 12.11.99 with a heading " The recommendation for the Resolution of Management for Anupam College and appointment of Administrator." It is plaintiff case that it was absolutely wrong news and there was absolutely no such move.
3. Upon this plaintiff seved defendant with the legal notice dated 22.11.1999 seeking damages for one crore rupees but the same was not replied . Even thereafter on 11.12.1999, defendant published another news item titled Dismissed SHO is running Engineering College. Plaintiff case is that he has never been SHO and he was dismissed. As per him the mention of two contd/.......
4 other cases in the news of beating and cheating are also false as there is no case against him. As per plaintiff the news items are false and malicious and have been published without verification only to harm his reputation. Even though in the legal notice, he claimed damages of Rs. 1 crore but he restricted the suit claim to Rs. 10 lacs for defamation vide two news items dated 12.11.1999 and 11.12.1999.
4. After filing of this suit and service of summons defendants filed their joint written statement. They took the preliminary objection that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party in so far as officials of B.R.Ambedkar University against whom the allegations are leveled have not been made party. It was pleaded that Vice Chancellor of B.R.Ambedkar University did lodged an FIR on the basis of complaint made by University officials Sh. G.C.Sharma and others and since that matter is still pending adjudication, it can not be stated that the contents of the FIR are false. As regards the dismissal of anticipatory bail application, it is clarified that SI B.L. Verma IO of contd/.......
5 PS Etmadpur , Agra appeared before the Sessions Court qua the FIR 338 of 99 and apprised that two persons including one Gokal Chand received injuries. Upon this plaintiff's anticipatory bail application was dismissed on 15.11.1999. It is said that no news item was published on 12.11.1999 , rather the first news item published was on 13.11.1999 qua recommendation of dissolution of Management of Anumpama College and appointment of an Administrator , it is said that this news item was factually correct on the basis of records and information received from concerned office. It is also said that it was published in goodfaith believing it to be true and considering the same to be for public good. Defendants denied that they ever intended to defame the plaintiff and his society. As regards the mention in the news that plaintiff was arrested, it is the case of the defendant that they made further verification and thereafter on 12.1.2000 published a corrigendum to the effect that plaintiff Sh. D.K. Gupta was not arrested and the error in publication was regretted. As per defendants they had no illwill with respect to this error and had no motive to defame the plaintiff in so far as the news items were published in contd/.......
6 good faith under bonafide belief. Defendants denied having received any legal notice of plaintiff.
5. Defendants denied having published any other news item on 11.12.1999 rather it was said to be dated 12.12.1999 under title BARKAST DAROGA CHALA RAHA HAI ENGINEEREING COLLEGE. It is said that plaintiff was a serving Sub Inspector of Delhi police who was dismissed on the ground of gross mis conduct and was found by the Competent Authority to be unfit for retention in discipline force like Delhi Police. Plaintiff was finally dismissed from service on 22.7.99 after a detailed enquiry. As per defendants , they brought the facts to the notice of the public as activities of plaintiff in the filed of education concerned children of public at large. It is clarified that FIR No.642/99 U/s 384/406/506 IPC was registered against plaintiff with PS Vasant Kunj at Delhi. It is also stated that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) withdrew the recognistion of plaintiff society vide its order dated 7.2.2007. Defendants have prayed for dismissal of this suit on the ground that the news items published by them were fair comments made in contd/.......
7 good faith on the basis of sufficient facts.
6. Replication was also filed by plaintiff in which he reiterated his pleaded case. Plaintiff maintained that no enquiry was ever held against him and he has never been dismissed from service as claimed by defendants. However, he did not deny that he was serving with Delhi Police as SI.
7. After completion of pleadings following issues were framed on 12.3.2003 by Hon'ble High Court as this suit was initially filed before the original side of Hon'ble High Court.
ISUSSES
8.
1. Whether the plaintiff was defamed by the publication of news item of 12.11.99 in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala,' Agra Edition under the heading Recommendation for Dissolution of Management of Anupama College of Engineering and Appointment of Administrator?
2. Whether report dated 11.12.1999 was defamatory of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the defendants intentionally published the false contd/.......
8 news of the plaintiffs arrest and the regret/ apology tendered was not a bonafide one and can not be regarded as a mitigating factor? (OPP)
4. Whether this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit since the alleged defamatory imputation was published in a newspaper in Agra? (OPD)
5. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the parties?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damage of Rs.10 lacs, as claimed or to any other amount? (OPP)
7. Relief
9. During the course of trial on 18.10.2005 , the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed when none appeared on their behalf , even though Ld. Counsel for defendant was present. However, it was later on restored on 12.4.2006.
10.To prove its case plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He exhibited his medical record as Ex. PW1/1to show that on 23.10.1999 he was present in the college where the incident of assault took place at Agra. Ex. PW1/2 is collectively the news items published by defendants with their English translation. Ex. PW1/3 is legal notice , Ex.
contd/.......
9 PW1/4 is copy of complaint made by parents to the Principal of Aditya College . Ex. PW1/5 is copy of newspaper having publication of dated 11.12.1999. Ex. PW1/6 is qua publication dated 19.11.1999, Ex. PW1/7 is letter written by him to Press Council of India. In his cross examination he conceded that he was SI in Delhi Police was dismissed from service. He also conceded that Vice Chancellor of Agra University namely Sh. Manzoor Ahmad did not have any illwill against him. He conceded that even though he was not SHO, but he translated the word THANEYDAR as SHO in his suit. He did not deny that his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by Sessions Court at Patiala House.
nd 11.2 Witness examined by the plaintiff is PW2 Mukul Gupta . He was a student of first year at Anupama College of Engineering , Agra in the year 1999. He supported the case of the plaintiff in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. In cross examination he conceded that the recognition of the college was withdrawn by AICTE on 7.2.2000 and thereafter students had to be shifted to other colleges contd/.......
10 and he was constrained to take admission at a college in Lucknow.
12.To prove his defence, defendant examined DW1 Gajender Singh , the press correspondent with Amar Ujala . He proved his affidavit Ex. DW1/A and he deposed on the lines of defendants WS. He placed on record copies of several news items published by Amar Ujala relating to plaintiff's educational institutions. Ex. DW1/1 is copy of news item dated 2.11.1999 regarding strike by students, teachers and employees of Anumpama College . Ex. DW1/2 is news item dated 26.10.1999 regarding intervention of police in the ongoing strike at Anupama College. Ex. DW1/3 is copy of news item dated 12.12.1999 from which plaintiff has taken cause of action, Ex. DW1/4 is news items qua withdrawn of the recognition by AICTE. Ex. DW1/5 is copy of news items dated 12.1.2000 whereby defendants regretted the mention of arrest of plaintiff in the earlier news item. Ex. DW1/6 is copy of the dismissal order of the plaintiff dated 22/7/99 , Ex. DW1/7 is copy of FIR with PS Vasant Kunj Delhi.
contd/.......
11
13.DW2 examined by defendant is ASI Naresh Chand of Delhi Police who proved on record copy of termination letter of plaintiff as Ex. DW2/1.
14.DW3 is S.SI Ram Avtar Gautam of PS Etmadpur , Agra . He proved copy of FIR No.177/99 U/s 323/504/506/34 IPC.
15.PW4 HC Raj Pal is of PS Vasant Kunj who proved the FIR lodged with him as Ex. DW4/A. As per him in the chargesheet , plaintiff's name was mentioned in column no.2.
16.PW5 is Rakesh Antani , Sr. Asst. Legal Officer of B.R. Ambedkar University, he proved the communication exchanged between the university , AICTE and the institutions run by the plaintiff as Ex. PW5/A1 to Ex. PW5/A7.
17.Now I shall decide the issues.
contd/.......
12
18.ISSUE NO.5 .
Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the parties?
19.Although the defendants have claimed that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party in so far as even though plaintiff has leveled allegations against Vice Chancellor of B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra , Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, its Deputy Registrar Sh. V.N. Singh and Sh. G.C. Sharma , Director of DAU Dayal Institute, Agra but they have not been impleaded as parties . It is case of the plaintiff that although above three persons are instrumental in conspiring with the defendants in defaming him but he has not sought any relief qua these three individuals. Rather in his cross examination , plaintiff has stated that Vice Chancellor Sh. Manzoor Ahmad had absolutely no ill will against him. In this backdrop, since no relief is being claimed against them, I see no legal impediment in filing of this suit against the defendants in the form presented. As such this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against contd/.......
13 defendants.
20.ISSUE NO.
4. Whether this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit since the alleged defamatory imputation was published in a newspaper in Agra? (OPD)
21.As regard the territorial jurisdiction it goes without saying that Civil Suit can be filed only at a place where cause of action has arisen wholly or partly. As per section 20 (c) CPC, a suit can be filed at a place where whole or part of cause of action has arisen. As per plaintiff , he is a resident of Vasant Kunj , Delhi and defendants also have their offices at Delhi. It is not the case of defendants that their news paper has only localised circulation at Agra or UP but it is admitted that their news paper under the name Amar Ujala has pan nation presence . In this backdrop defamation can not be said to have taken place only at the place from where the newspaper is published but cause of action can arise at all such places where the newspaper is circulated and is read by general masses . As such this issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
contd/.......
14
22.Before dealing with the other issues on merits it would be pertinent to have a glance at landmark judgments governing tortuous liability of defamation as far as Press and Media Agencies are concerned. It is a settled legal proposition that comments made by Press in the mattes related to public interest after reasonably verifying the facts does not constitute defamation if the same is done in good faith without any malice. In case titled Telnikomm Vs. Matusevitch 1990 All England Reporter 865 Lloyed , L.J. observed :
" My conclusion is that law is correctly stated in Duncan Neill nd on defamation , 2 Edition , 1983, para 12.02 as followed: a. The comment must be on a matter of public interest , b. The comment must be based on fact, c. the comment , though it can consists of or include inferences of fact , must be recognisable as comment , d. the comment must satisfy the following objective tests - could any fear minded man honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?
and contd/.......
15 e. Even though the comment satisfy the objective test , the defence can be repeated if the plaintiff proved that the defendant was actuated by expressed malice."
23.In the same judgment while observing on the term "malice" LD. Judge further observed:
If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice , it can not as a matter of law provides evidence on which the Jury could find malice. The Judge would be bound so to direct the Jury. If there are no pieces of evidence which are more consistent with malice than the absence of malice , there is no evidence of malice to go to the jury.
24.Issue No1 , 2 and 3.
1.Whether the plaintiff was defamed by the publication of news item of 12.11.99 in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala,' Agra Edition under the heading Recommendation for Dissolution of Management of Anupama College of Engineering and Appointment of Administrator?
contd/.......
16
2.Whether report dated 11.12.1999 was defamatory of the plaintiff?
3.Whether the defendants intentionally published the false news of the plaintiffs arrest and the regret/ apology tendered was not a bonafide one and can not be regarded as a mitigating factor? (OPP)
25.In the case in hand the pleaded case of plaintiff is that defendant publication house and its director entered into criminal conspiracy with Vice Chancellor of B.R.Ambedkar University namely Mr. Manzoor Ahmad , Mr. V.N. Singh Dy. Registrar and Dr. D.C. Sharma, Director of DAU Dayal University in order to harm his reputation out of jealousy actuated by progress made by institution run by the plaintiff. Apparently this assertion has been made only to impute malice to the News Publications published by defendants on 12.11.1999 and 11.12.1999. However, in the entire evidence led by the evidence, plaintiff has not been able to bring on record any documentary or otherwise evidence to show that the defendant publication house was acting under actual or decipherable malice. Surprisingly in his cross examination , plaintiff categorically conceded that Sh. Manzoor Ahmad , Vice Chancellor of contd/.......
17 B.R.Ambedkar University never had any ill will against him . This statement not only exnotrates Sh. Manzoor Ahmad of the imputation casted by the plaintiff in his plain but also indicates that his conspiracy theory is nothing but his own self propagated brain child .
26.Record shows that the number of publications carried out by the defendant publication house qua the plaintiff's institution were not limited to the two publications dated 12.11.1999 and 11.12.1999 but also included other publications dated 25.8.99, 30.10.1999, 1.11.1999 , 11.1.2000 and 11.2.2000 . The documents placed and proved by the defendant on record shows that since plaintiff was running professional educational institution where carrier and hard earned money of 100 of students were at stake , as expected by the publication house, defendants were following the developments which were taking place therein. Although the plaintiff initially denied in his pleadings but documents available on record categorically shows that owing to anamolies found by the Enquiry Committed constituted by contd/.......
18 AICTE , the technical approval and recognition accorded by AICTE to the plaintiff's institution was withdrawn vide letter 7.2.2000 Ex.DW2/1. As a result carrier of scores of students was left lurching in jeopardy and as per witness of plaintiff himself namely PW2 Mukul Gupta , after the recognition was withdrawn from Anupama College of Engineering, all the students had to shift to other colleges and he too had to shift to a college at Lucknow, UP to save his career.
27.The factum of withdrawal of recognition by AICTE was admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination as well. Vide document Ex. DW 5/6 plaintiff himself withdrew the fixed deposit receipt (FDR) from B.R. Amedkar University after the withdrawal of affiliation. It is not the case of the plaintiff that withdrawal of recognition of his Engineering College by AICTE was unjustified or that he challenged the same before any higher authority or court of law. The decision of withdrawal of recognition, as referred to supra, was passed after submission of enquiry report by a committee which inquired into the contd/.......
19 irregularities committed by the management including the plaintiff. In this backdrop, the publications carried out by the defendant publication house in the newspaper appears to be ethical and justified. Even otherwise it is expected of a daily newspaper that they bring to fore the irregularities in Govt and non Govt institutions in so far as they have directed bearing on the citizens related to them. Although the plaintiff does not in stricter sense comes under the purview of "Public Official" but in so far as he is heading a Society which is admittedly running the group of educational institution wherein 100 students study, his antecedents and his current activities shall always be open and prone to public gauze and scrutiny. In this aspect a man like plaintiff who is heading a group of an educational institution in a way becomes a "public figure" . In R.R.Gopal Vs. State of Tamilnadu AIR 1995 SC 264 Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to celebrated decision of New York Times Vs. Sullivan which was also followed in case titled Times Inc. Vs. Hill observed:
The principal of the said decision has to be held applicable to "public figures" as well . This is for the reason that like contd/.......
20 Public figures like public officials often play an influential role in ordering society. It has been held that as a class the public figures have , as the public officials have , access to mass media communication both to influence the policy and to counter criticism of their views and activities. On this basis it has been held that - the citizen has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of such person and that the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events
28.Another judgment relied by LD. Counsel for defendant is Santosh Tiwari Vs. State of UP 1996 (33) ACC 923, it has been observed that :
There can not be even a sightest doubt that there is widespread corruption in the country and persons holding public positions are adopting most dubious methods to acquire wealth. Mind buggling scams involving astronomical figures are being brought to light almost every day. The Press has an important role to play in exposing the corruption at public places and to contd/.......
21 inform the people abut the misdeed of those who are indulging in such nefarious activities. In fact it is the duty of the Press to highlight the cases of corruption. The Press must publish reports about such incidents immediately afte they are brought to light . Investigation into matters relating to financial bungling takes a long time. The press has to publish the news about such matters forthwith and it can not wait indefinitely for the investigation to be completed and complete facts to be ascertained as waiting for such a long period would make the news stale. Public good demands that such people, if not actually convicted and sentenced by a court of law, at least get a bad name in the society by publication of their names and misdeeds in the media."
29.It will not be out of place to mention here that the UK Newspapers enjoy specific protection in view of Law of Libel Amendment Act 1988 and without the leave of a Judge , which can be granted only if imputation is very serious of public interest demand prosecution , no prosecution can be launched .
30.Coming to the case in hand as far as the first impugned publication dated contd/.......
22 12.11.1999 published in 13.11.1999 edition of defendant's newspaper entire factual aspect of the small news item is duly justified and corroborated by supporting documents filed and proved by defendant on record as detailed supra except one assertion that police had arrested Sh. D.K.Gupta, plaintiff herein. As regard this aspect copy of the FIR of PS Etmadpur, Agra and the other particulars qua the incident of assault which took place in the institution of the plaintiff wherein Enquiry Committee officials of B.R.Amedkar University were assaulted, are duly proved on record. It is proved on record that the initial anticipatory bail application of plaintiff in this case was dismissed by LD. Sessions Court at Patiala House, Delhi. He was later granted interim bail by Hon'ble Delhi High Court . It goes without saying that even when a person is granted anticipatory bail he has to be formally arrested, in case the offence is non bailable , and then he is enlarged on bail by the concerned police official as per the anticipatory bail order. Even though it is a technical arrest but in a way it can be said to be a legal ,formal arrest of a person followed by a bail. But still the defendant newspaper corrected this portion of the news item by contd/.......
23 issuing a corrigendum and regret voluntarily in their news item published on 11.1.2000. In this publication Ex. DW1/5 it has been specifically mentioned that the mention of arrest of plaintiff was an inadvertent mistake and that the mistake is regretted.
31.In case titled Shivaji Gowda Vs. T. Narayanan 1968 Crl. LJ 836 it was ruled that :
"it is sufficient if the accused can show that the statements are substantiate to in regard to the material portion of the allegation or insinuation . Therefore, if the news published by the press is substantially correct , the person responsible for reporting or publishing the same can not be held liable for defamation merely because it is not true on some minor matters."
32. In view of this backdrop I do not see any reason as to why this publication dated 13.11.1999 should still be regarded as a fact which can give rise to cause of action in favour of plaintiff to seek damage.
contd/.......
24
33.As regards news items dated 11.12.1999 published on 12.12.1999, it is evident that plaintiff translated the word DAROGA to SHO even though hindi translation of SHO should be THANA ADHYAKSH . Plaintiff tried to read much into his own wrong translation by claiming that he had never been a SHO. Even though plaintiff through out his pleadings contended that he has never been dismissed from service but when he was shown his own dismissal order issued by competent authority of Delhi Police , he mellowed down by saying that the order is unjustified and is under challenge. It is not expected of a party to plead incorrect facts in the court. It is the basic principle of civil jurisprudence that one who seeks equity should also do equity and that one should approach the court with clean hands. The separation of material facts and pleading of incorrect facts are in their own wisdom sufficient to deny a party any relief in the Court of Law. Even with regards to registration of an FIR with PS Vasant Kunj, plaintiff categorically denied the same but later on in cross examination of PW4, it came on record that name of plaintiff appeared as one of the coaccused in the chargesheet. As such even this publication contd/.......
25 does not pass the litmus test of qualifying as a fact which entitles plaintiff to seek damages from the defendant for defamation.
34.Moreover, it has rightly been pointed out by LD. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has not brought any evidence whatsoever on record to show that as to how the reputation has been damaged and as to how he quantify this claim of Rs.10 lacs. Record shows that in the legal notice issued to the defendants apart from Vice Chancellor of B.R.Amedkar University Agra and the SHO of PS Etmad Pur Ex. PW1/B plaintiff has claimed that they are all liable to pay him Rs.1 crore each as damages. However, while filing this suit he on his own brought his claim down from one crore to Rs. 10 lacs. There was no justification with regard to claim of Rs. one crore and similarly there is no justification on record qua his claim of Rs.10 lacs.
contd/.......
26
35.In case titled G. Venkesteshan Vs. General Manager APSRTC AIR 1978 AP 285, DB of Hon'ble High Court while discussing the necessity of leading specific evidence qua the quantum of compensation sought observed:
" The second characteristic omission which we find in this petition is that the claimant has made a bald claim of Rs.1,00,000/ without stating in the petition or in an annexure to the petition how he has arrived at the figure of Rs.1,00,000/. It is always necessary to specify different head under which damages or compensation is claimed. A bald of a lakh of rupees or more or less does not help the claimant in establishing his claim satisfactorily. The claim petition must contain all necessary details showing how the claim has been arrived at and on what basis."
36.Record shows that apart from examining himself the only additional witness examined by the plaintiff is PW2 Mukul Gupta. Perusal of deposition of this witness also shows that instead of aiding the case of plaintiff, it is rather reprimanding him in so far as this witness said that he had to shift his studies from Agra to Lucknow owing to withdrawl of sanction by AICTE. No witness contd/.......
27 has been examined by the plaintiff to the effect that by going through the publications , plaintiff's reputation in their eyes in any manner lowered. In this regard Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Frankfin Management Consultance Vs. Subhash Motwani CS (OS) 367/02 decided on 12.9.08 while referring necessity of producing and examining independent witnesses who can depose on the damage of reputation if any suffered by the plaintiff observed that : " the witness in para 15 and 16 of his affidavit states that as a direct consequence of the article, a number of prospective candidates , applicants and other general members of the society carry an impression and belief that plaintiff is not an honourable organisation and plaintiff has suffered loss and damage in reputation , image, goodwill and standing in the society at large . However, no such prospective candidate/applicant or member of the society has been examined and the statement of the witness also is vague and is at best hearsay evidence."
37.Similarly in the case in hand as well there is nothing on record to suggest that contd/.......
28 plaintiff suffered any loss of reputation or his image in any manner took a beating . In this backdrop no monetary compensation as sought can be granted .
38.As such summing up the above discussion I have no hesitation in concluding that two impugned publications were so published by the defendants in good faith. The imputations herein are primarily truthful and were so published after due verification in good faith for public good. Hence no fault can be found in the conduct of defendants and as such plaintiff has failed to make out a case of grant of damages for defamation and all these three issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. RELIEF
39. In view of the decision on all the issues, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief . Suit for plaintiff is dismissed , parties are however, left to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room.
contd/.......
29 ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 25.9.09 (SURINDER S. RATHI) ADJ:DELHI contd/.......