Bangalore District Court
Sri C.V.Nagesh vs Sri Pankaj Rai on 21 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 14), BANGALORE CITY.
PRESENT:
Sri G.S.REVANKAR, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.),
XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH 2016
O.S.No.1343/2015
PLAINTIFFS: SRI C.V.NAGESH,
S/O LATE S.VENKATAKRISHNAIAH,
MAJOR,
No.33, PATALAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
BASAVANGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
(By SRI H.S.DWARAKANATH,
ADVOCATE)
/VS/
DEFENDANT: SRI PANKAJ RAI,
MAJOR,
"SEEMAVAS", 6074,
PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN,
WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 048.
(BY SRI N.J.B., ADVOCATE)
Date of Institution of the 09.02.2015
suit
Nature of suit DAMAGES
Date of commencement of 18.01.2016
recording of evidence.
Date on which Judgment 21.03.2016
was pronounced
2 O.S.NO.1343/2015
Total Duration Years Months Days
01 01 12
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant as damages.
2. The facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:-
The plaintiff has contended that he is an advocate by profession and hails from a highly leaned family of Hindu Scholars, Teachers and Advocates. The plaintiff has also contended that he has a distinguished academic records secured his science degree and he is a most senior member of Bangalore Bar and has a distinguished record of 47 years of standing practice in Bangalore Bar and the Hon'ble High Court bestowed upon him an honour by designating him as a senior advocate. The plaintiff has contended that he is lawyer, has represented the Central and State Governments in many sensational cases before various courts, commissions and forums of the country. The plaintiff has also contended that he is assessed to income tax and he is certified by the income tax 3 O.S.NO.1343/2015 department as one of the highest tax paid assessee. Thepl has further contended that M/s Fortis Hospital, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore, and few of the doctors who are attached to it engaged the services of M/s C.V.Nagesh Associates, Advocates, in various courts and forum in certain actions brought against them by the defendant Mr.Pankaj Rai. One of such case in which their service came to be engaged by M/s Fortis Hospital was a writ petition in WP.No.45437/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka who is attached to M/s C.V.Nagesh Associates on the basis of instructions given to him by M/s Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, drafted and filed the above said writ petition and thereafter engaged the services of the plaintiff as a senior counsel to appear for his client. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the parties to the case, while accepting submission made on behalf of the hospital, allowed the writ petition, set-at-naught the orders impugned in the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the authority for fresh disposal in terms indicated in the order. The appeal filed by the defendant before the Divisional Bench also came to be dismissed. 4 O.S.NO.1343/2015 The plaintiff has further contended that Dr.Ramacharan Thyagarajan, Transplant Surgeon, who is attached to the M/s Fortis Hospital availed services of the plaintiff in WP.No.16521/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court. The plaintiff on the strength of briefing that were given to him by the counsel on record made his submissions on behalf of the writ petitioner Dr.Ramacharan Thyagarajan at a point of time when the writ petition was listed for orders/preliminary hearing/final disposal. The Hon'ble High Court while accepting the submissions so made on behalf of the writ petitioner that there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Medical Council of India which passed the order advrse to the interest of the writ petitioner allowed the writ petition and set at naught the order impugned in the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Medical Council of India for fresh disposal of the appeal of the defendant. During the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner was having the advantage of an order of stay of operation of the order passed by the Medical Council of India. The plaintiff has further contended that after disposal of the writ 5 O.S.NO.1343/2015 petition and writ appeal, the defendant, on 17.01.2014, filed a complaint against the plaintiff before the Karnataka State Bar Council alleging that the plaintiff being Proprietor /Partner of the Law Firm, engaged by M/s Fortis Hospitals Ltd., appeared as the senior counsel in the writ petition, to which writ petition, the dfis a party before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and that as a senior counsel, instead of assisting the High Court in the administration of justice as an officer of the court, the plaintiff who earns his livelihood by practicing and as a senior counsel has been habitually making false averments in the court in collusion with M/s Fortis Hospital with the sole intention of misleading the court so that the court passes wrong orders and that the common citizens lose faith in the judiciary and further during the hearing in the said W.P.No.45437/2011, the plaintiff has made a false statement to the effect that M/s Fortis Hospital wa not furnished with the copies of the report dated 20.05.2011 of the Technical Committee and certain other documents and that the appropriate authority which decided the issue placed heavy reliance on the report of the Technical 6 O.S.NO.1343/2015 Committee of the Lokayuktha, Karnataka State, while passing the order which was impugned in the writ petition and that this statement came to be made by the plaintiff deliberately although M/s Fortis Hospitals received a copy of the report of the Technical Committee attached to the Lokayukta on 23.06.2011 itself and that the false statement made by the plaintiff before the court knowing it to be false resulted in miscarriage of justice consequent to the order of remand passed in the writ petition and that the clock of justice was reversed by one year and subjected the defendant to hardship and that in another writ petition i.e. WP.No.16521/2012 filed by Dr.Ramcharan Thiagarajan, the plaintiff despite knowing that there was no denial of principles of natural justice while passing the order impugned in the writ petition, made a false submission before the Hon'ble High Court in the said writ petition and that the false and dishonest actions of the plaintiff has resulted in the writ petitioner getting the benefit of an interim order and that the plaintiff is habituated in making dishonest pleadings with utter disregard to the noble profession of advocacy etc., and that 7 O.S.NO.1343/2015 he can bring to the notice of the Council more number of instances where the plaintiff had made false averments and that the plaintiff does not have any remorse in bringing disrepute to the noble profession of advocacy, etc.,
3. The plaintiff has further contended that the plea incorporated in the writ petitions are based on the instructions that are given to the counsel on record in the case by his clients and that the designate senior counsel i.e. the plaintiff whose services came to be engaged on the basis of briefing given to him by the counsel on record made submission that were necessary before the court. The plaintiff has further contended that the allegations leveled by the defendant in the complaint before the Karnataka State Bar Council is totally false and per se defamatory. The plaintiff has also contended that the complaint filed by the defendant has been closed by the Karnataka State Bar Council. The plaintiff has also contended that the defendant has been in the habit of making false, baseless and per se defamatory and on earlier occasion, the defendant has gone to the extent of 8 O.S.NO.1343/2015 calling the Chairman of Karnataka Medical Council as corrupt when the council passed an order holding that the doctor of M/s Fortis Hospital against whom the defendant had filed a complaint are not guilty of the act of negligence contributed to them. The plaintiff has further contended that the defendant has made reckless and also defamatory allegations knowing or having reason to believe that such allegations are false and far from truth. The plaintiff has also contended that he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the defendant for the offence punishable u/s 500 of I.P.C. The plaintiff has further contended he and his family members and innumerable lawyers who are trained and managed by him, since obnoxious allegations leveled against him has also been put to mental agony, humiliation and difficulty. The plaintiff has also contended although the damage cause to his image and reputation by the defendant consequent to defamatory allegations cannot be measured under the caption 'pecuniary loss', the plaintiff modestly estimates sum of Rs.500,000/-. On these grounds, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
9 O.S.NO.1343/2015
4. Though the defendant has appeared before the court, has not contested the suit by filing his written statement.
5. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to P17.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows -
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has made false allegations knowing or having reason to believe that said allegations are false which is perse defamatory and as such, he is liable to recover a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages?
2) What decree or order?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: Affirmative, Point No.2: As per final order, for the following, 10 O.S.NO.1343/2015 REASONS
8. Point No.1: The plaintiff has filed this suit for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and during his evidence, in all 18 documents are marked as Ex.P1 to P18. P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the plaint averments and stated that he is a lawyer by profession and hails from highly learned family of Hindu scholar, teachers and advocates. P.W.1 has also stated that he has a distinguished academic record secured in his science degree from Bangalore University and his law decree from prestigious University Law College, Bangalore, during the year 1962. He has also stated that he is one of the seniormost members of Bangalore Bar and has a distinguished record of 47 years of standing practice in Bangalore bar and Hon'ble High Court has bestowed upon him a honour by designating him as a Senior Advocate. P.W.1 has also stated that he has represented Central and State Government as lawyer for many sensational cases before courts, commissions and forums of the country. 11 O.S.NO.1343/2015 P.W.1 has further stated that M/s Fortis Hosital, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore and few of the doctors who are attached to it engaged the services of M/s C.V.Nagesh Associates, Advocates, in various courts and forums in certain actions brought against them by the defendant Mr.Pankaj Rai. The plaintiff has also produced the certified copy of WP.No.45437/2007 which is marked as Ex.P8. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that in WP.No.45437/2011, M/s Fortis Hospital has engaged his services and on the basis of the instructions given by M/s Fortis Hospital, writ petition was drafted and filed and thereafter, his services were engaged as a senior counsel and after hearing the parties, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka accepted his submission made on behalf of the hospital, allowed the writ petition set at naught order impugned in the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh disposal. P.W.1 has further stated that the appeal filed by the defendant before the Division Bench has also came to be dismissed. The plaintiff has produced certified copy of the order in W.A.No.8767/2012 which is filed by M/s Fortis Hospital 12 O.S.NO.1343/2015 Ltd. and in the said writ appeal, the defendant has been arrayed as respondent No.4. The said writ appeal is partly allowed. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that Dr.Ramachandra Thyagarajan who attached to M/s Fortis Hospital availed his services in WP.No.16521/2012. P.W.1 has further stated that the Hon'ble High Court while accepting his submission so made on behalf of the writ petitioner that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Medical Council of India which passed an order adverse to the interest of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ petition. P.W.1 has further stated that after disposal of the writ petition and writ appeal, the defendant on 17.01.2014 filed a complaint against him before the Karnataka State Bar Council alleging that he being the Proprietor/Partner of the law firm, engaged by M/s Fortis Hospital Limited appeared as senior counsel in the writ petition, to which writ petition the defendant is a party before the Hon'ble High Court and that as a senior counsel instead of assisting the High Court in administration of justice, as an officer of the court, the plaintiff who earns his livelihood by practicing and as a 13 O.S.NO.1343/2015 senior counsel has been habitually making false averments in the court in collusion with M/s Fortis Hospital with the sole intention of misleading the court so that the court pass wrong orders and that the common citizen lose faith in judiciary and further during the hearing in the said W.P.No.45437/2011, the plaintiff has made false statement to the effect that M/s Fortis Hospital was not furnished with the copies of the report dated 20.05.2011 of the Technical Committee and certain other documents and that appropriate authority which decided the issue placed heavy reliance on the report of the Technical Committee of Lokayuktha, Karnataka State, while passing the order which was impugned in the writ petition and that this statement came to be made by the plaintiff deliberately although M/s Fortis Hospital received a copy of the report of the Technical Committee attached to the Lokayuktha on 23.06.2011 itself and that the false statement made by the plaintiff before the court knowing it to be false resulted in miscarriage of justice consequent to the order of remand passed in writ petition and that the clock of justice was reversed by one year and subjected the defendant to 14 O.S.NO.1343/2015 hardship and that in another writ petition i.e. W.P.No.16521/2012 filed by Dr.Ramachandra Thyagarajan, the plaintiff despite knowing that there was no denial of principals of justice, while passing the order impugned in the writ petition, has made a false statement before the Hon'ble High Court in the said writ petition and that the false and dishonest action of the plaintiff have resulted in writ petitioner getting the benefit of interim order and the plaintiff is habituated in making dishonest pleadings in utter disregard to the noble profession of advocacy, etc. and that he can bring to the notice of the council more number of instances where the plaintiff had made false averments and that the plaintiff does not have any remorse in bringing disrepute to the noble profession of advocacy. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the order pertaining to the complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff before the Bar Council. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Bar Council rejecting the complaint of the defendant. Ex.P5 do not disclose the allegations made by the defendant against the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff has produced copy of the complaint filed 15 O.S.NO.1343/2015 by the defendant before the Bar Council which is marked as Ex.P15. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the plea incorporated in the writ petition are based on the instructions that are given by his client and his service has been engaged on the basis of briefing given to him by the counsel on record. P.W.1 has further stated that the allegation made by the in the complaint before the Karnataka State Bar Council is totally false and also defamatory. P.W.1 has further stated that the defendant has made reckless and defamatory allegations knowing or having reason to believe that such allegations are false and far away from the truth. The advocate for the plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in AIR 1999 S.C.1341 wherein it is held that 'it is the bounden duty of a party personally knowing the facts and circumstances, to give evidence on his own behalf and to submit to cross examination and his non-appearance as a witness would be the strongest possible circumstance which will go to discredit the truth of his case'. In the present case, though the defendant appeared before the court, has not filed his written statement and he has not cross-examined the witness so 16 O.S.NO.1343/2015 also he did not step into witness box to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The documents produced by the plaintiff so also as admitted by the plaintiff, he has appeared in both the writ petitions referred above. The case of the plaintiff is mainly based upon the allegations made by the defendant before the Karnataka Bar Council. On perusal of the said complaint, Ex.P15, it can be seen that the allegations made by the defendant is perse defamatory which is in the nature of harming the reputation of the plaintiff. There is no any reason to disprove the testimony of P.W.1 so also the documents of the plaintiff. With these observations, I answer this point in the affirmative.
9. Point No.2: In view of the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit is decreed with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant as damages. 17 O.S.NO.1343/2015
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation by the Judgment Writer directly over computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st Day of March 2016) (G.S.REVANKAR) XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE Annexure List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 : Sri C.V.Nagesh Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Certificate issued by income tax department Ex.P2 : Certified copy of the complaint Ex.P3 : Certified copy of the order sheet Ex.P4 : Certified copy of the order pertaining to the complaint filed by defendant against P.W.1 before Bar Council Ex.P5 : Order passed by the Bar Council rejecting the complaint Ex.P6 : Certified copy of the writ petition Ex.P7 : Certified copy of proceedings in writ petition Ex.P8 : Certified copy of the WP.No.45437/2011 Ex.P9 : Certified copy of the order sheet in the said writ petition Ex.P10 : Certified copy of the W.A.No.8767/2012 Ex.P11 : Certified copy of the order in the said writ appeal Ex.P12 : Contempt petition in Criminal Contempt No.13/2014 Ex.P13 : Affidavit of apology by the defendant Ex.P14 : Certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka accepting the apology tendered by the defendant 18 O.S.NO.1343/2015 Ex.P15 : Copy of complaint filed by the defendant before the Bar Council Ex.P16 : Notice Ex.P17 : Reply List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
-----NIL-----
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s: NIL
-----NIL-----
(G.S.REVANKAR) XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE 19 O.S.NO.1343/2015 Case called out.
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate order) The suit is decreed with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant as damages.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXXI ACCJ:Bangalore.