Delhi District Court
Shri D.V. Singh vs Mrs. Usha Jain on 28 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA
ADJ 08 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civ DJ No.610191/2016
Shri D.V. Singh
S/o Late Shri Tej Singh
R/o B13, Kalindi Colony,
New Delhi110065 .......Plaintiff
versus
Mrs. Usha Jain
W/o Late Shri O.P. Jain
R/o E17, Kalindi Colony,
New Delhi110065 .........Defendant
Date of Institution : 28.02.2007
Date of Transfer to this Court : 05.05.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment : 03.12.2016
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2017
J U D G M E N T :
1. This is suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/ on account of damages as filed by
the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff are that his mother late Smt.
Prakash Wati was the member of Swatantra Housing Building Society,
Kalindi Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Society") and after
her death, the plaintiff became its member being her nominee w.e.f. 1979 and
also became member of the Managing Committee of the society. It is
averred that during course of business of the society, the plaintiff had raised
various issues in the management committee which were strongly opposed
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 1 of 18
by other members of the society, such as, resolution to charge heavy amount
for transferring the shares against the provisions of Delhi Cooperative
Society Act & rules made thereunder as well as regulation of the society
without placing the same before the General Body meeting as there was
practically no general body meeting since 1979. According to the plaintiff,
due to the said opposition, members of the society developed permanent
grudge against the plaintiff and he was sidelined by other members of the
Managing Committee including the defendant and Sh. Pritam Singh Taneja.
3. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant hatched a conspiracy
to defame the plaintiff by way of spreading malicious propaganda and
leaflets containing baseless allegations affecting his reputation in order to
oust him from the Managing Committee in the forthcoming election of the
society. It is also pleaded that in order to achieve the illegal gain, the
defendant became one of the members of the Managing Committee of the
society and took a stand that the plaintiff had resigned from the Managing
Committee thereby not inviting the plaintiff or serving him with any notice
pertaining to various meetings of the society, which led to the filing of the
petition titled as "D.V. Singh vs. Dr. R.C. Mangla & ors" before the Registrar
of Cooperative Society, Delhi seeking injunction from holding meeting of the
managing committee as well as from spending sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ which
was received by the society as compensation pertaining to acquired land of
the society.
4. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that in the aforesaid petition, the reply
was filed wherein baseless allegations have been made to the effect that "the
aim of the plaintiff since the inception of the society is to use it as instrument
in grabbing the land of the society so as to enrich himself and deprive the
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 2 of 18
Society and its members from its valuable amenities in the shape of the park
etc.". It is alleged that the defendant being respondent No. 6 in the said case
had also adopted the reply filed on behalf of the society. It is further pleaded that the allegations have been made in writing with a view to affect the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of general public / members of the society and made the plaintiff an object of hatred and ridicule so as to reduce the prospects of his being elected as one of the members of the Managing Committee in the election as and when held by the competent authority. It is further averred that the copy of the aforesaid reply was served and received by the plaintiff on or around 01.03.2006 and therefore, same is deemed to have been communicated / published in the eyes of law on the said date.
5. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that some irregularities were carried out in the election held on 30.09.2006 pertaining to the members of the managing committee and the plaintiff raised objections to the effect that certain members of the society who had already sold their plots to the outsiders had been illegally included in the Voter's list. The said elections were challenged in a case tilted as "Paresh Nath & ors vs. Shri V.M. Trehan & ors" which is pending adjudication before the Registrar of Cooperative Society, Delhi in which the defendant is one of the respondent being member of the managing committee. Reply was filed wherein it has been alleged "the plaintiff had been habitual fault finder and had been dragging the society to all kind of disputes and litigation by filing false and vexatious complaint and petitions. The history of the society will clearly show that Mr. D.V. Singh had been filing complaints against the society since 1979 and onwards till date. He had never cooperated in the affairs of the society and he has been creating problems and difficulties in the smooth functioning of the society".
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 3 of 18
6. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is respected member of the society and is an income tax assessee. The plaintiff has not only suffered loss of reputation and the prospect of wining election of the managing committee due to the malicious propaganda and conspiracy hatched by the defendant but also suffered damages amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/, however, the plaintiff restricted his claim to Rs.10,00,000/ as damages on account of the fact that the defendant being a widow lady. The plaintiff also served legal notice dated 21.12.2016 and demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ alongwith interest @15% per annum. Despite service of notice, the defendant did not pay the said amount which led to the filing of the present suit.
7. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant and as per the written statement, the case of the defendant is that the defendant was impleaded as respondent no.6 in the Arbitration case titled as "D.V. Singh vs. Dr. R.C. Mangla & ors" and was one of the respondent's in the case titled as "Shri Paresh Nath and others Vs. Shri V.M. Trehan and Others" and pleaded that the said statements were made before the Registrar of Cooperative Society, New Delhi having control over the affairs of the Society and thus, covered within the ambit and scope of privileged communication and by no stretch of imagination, the said statements comes under the purview of defamation. It was further pleaded that the truthfulness and veracity of contents of the reply is yet to be examined by the adjudicating authority and in the absence of the finding upon the same, it was not open for the plaintiff to file the present suit before this Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
8. Replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the defendant at the most can claim qualified privilege which needs trial. It was also pleaded that the Arbitrator in the case titled as Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 4 of 18 "D.V. Singh vs. Dr. R.C. Mangla & ors" has passed an Award on 12.10.2009 and has observed under para 15 of the said award that the arbitration is not the forum to decide the alleged derogatory remarks and the plaintiff can take appropriate remedy in this regard. It is thus pleaded that the pleadings filed before the Registrar of Cooperative Society are not privileged and this court is the right forum to decide the allegations of defamation and consequential damages arising therefrom. It was also averred in para 3 of the replication that the only controversy between the parties is whether the statements are qualified privilege or absolute privilege. As per the plaintiff, the allegations in the pleadings cannot be considered as absolute privilege as the same were not made in the interest of public but were made personally against the plaintiff by an individual defendant and as such, does not involve public interest at all.
9. Perusal of the record envisage that the plaint had been earlier rejected by the Learned Predecessor of this Court while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 15.12.2010. The said order was, however, challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.F.A. No. 257 of 2011. Vide order dated 22.12.2011, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. Vide order dated 02.03.2016, defendant was proceeded exparte by the ld. Predecessor of this Court.
10.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issue were framed vide order dated 11.07.2013 as :
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action as the statements made by the defendant in the course of judicial / quasi judicial proceedings are covered under absolute privilege? OPD Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 5 of 18
2. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts? If so, its effects. OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of damages of Rs.10 lacs, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest @15% per annum on the sum of Rs.10 lacs, as prayed for? OPP
5. Relief.
11.Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined Sh. Satveer Singh, Nazir from the Court of Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, Ld. ADJ (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW1; Sh. S.M. Chawla, Head Clerk from the office of Registrar of Cooperative Society, Parliament Street, Delhi as PW2 and examined himself as PW3.
12.The issue wise findings is given in the succeeding paragraphs. Issue No. 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action as the statements made by the defendant in the course of judicial / quasi judicial proceedings are covered under absolute privilege? OPD AND Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts? If so, its effects? OPD
13.The onus to prove the aforesaid issue nos. 1 & 2 was on the defendant. Defendant has led no evidence to prove his case. As per the plaintiff, the defendant being respondent No. 6 in the Arbitration Case titled as "Mr. D.V. Singh vs. Dr. R.C.Mangla & ors" had adopted reply of the society wherein the defamatory allegations are made as "the aim of the plaintiff since the inception of the society is to use it as instrument in grabbing the land of the Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 6 of 18 society so as to enrich himself and deprive the Society and its members from its valuable amenities in the shape of the park etc." The plaintiff pointed some irregularities carried out in the election of the society held on 30.09.2006 and challenged the same in a case tilted as "Paresh Nath & ors vs. V.M. Trehan & ors" before the Registrar of Cooperative Society, Delhi in which the defendant being one of the respondent's alleged that "the plaintiff had been habitual fault finder and had been dragging the society to all kind of disputes and litigation by filing false and vexatious complaint and petitions. The history of the society will clearly show that Mr. D.V. Singh had been filing complaints against the society since 1979 and onwards till date. He had never cooperated in the affairs of the society and he has been creating problems and difficulties in the smooth functioning of the society". According to the plaintiff, the statement made in the pleadings against the plaintiff has lowered down the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of general public/ members of the society and hence, the same amounts to defamation.
14.On the other side, as per the defendant, the alleged statements were made in the proceedings pending before the Registrar of Cooperative Society, New Delhi which being quasi judicial authority is having control over the affairs of the society and the statement made to an authority for the purpose of getting it to act within the scope of its authority is the matter of absolute privilege. It is thus the case of the defendant that the alleged statements made in replies filed before the Registrar of Cooperative Society, New Delhi having control over the aforesaid subject matter falls in the ambit and scope of the privileged communication and no action for defamation is maintainable on the basis of the same.
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 7 of 18
15.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the aforesaid allegations were made in writing as part of the pleadings which are in the nature of the statement expressed by the defendant in writing before a competent authority and accessible to the other members of the society. The said allegations / expressions in writing are in the form of defamation and amounts to libel form of defamation. He further submitted that the offence of defamation is continuing as the defendant has reiterated the allegations in the written statement and has not withdrawn the same till date.
16. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that as per the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the issue on "privilege" was required to be decided at the stage of final arguments by way of recording evidence. He argued that as the defendant has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.03.2016 i.e. before the recording of evidence & thus, the plea raised by the defendant that the statement made before the Registrar of cooperative society are covered within the scope of privileged communication has not been proved on record.
17. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff is a person of means and is thus entitled to damages of Rs.10,00,000/ lac. He also submitted that in order to prove the damages, plaintiff as PW3 has proved the copy of house Tax Receipts as Ex.PW3/1 (colly); copy of the Lease agreement dated 06.07.2004 of an Industrial Shed situated at plot No. 50, Sector27C, Faridabad as Ex.PW3/2; copy of lease agreement dated 07.09.2006 of house No. 581, Sector29, Faridabad, Haryana built on plot measuring 250 sq. yards as Ex.PW3/3; property tax receipts of house No. B13, BlockB, Kalindi Colony, Delhi as Ex.PW3/4 and Ex.PW3/5 (colly).
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 8 of 18
18.Ld counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the tribunal which had all the trappings of the court are only eligible to absolute privilege. He argued that the Registrar of Cooperative Society is not a court within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus, the defendant cannot claim any absolute privilege in the proceedings before the Registrar of Cooperative Society. He further submitted that all appeals from the court of the Registrar of Cooperative Society lies to the Appellate Tribunal which is not a Court either and is headed by senior I.A.S. Officer and not by judicial officer.
19.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as 126 (2006)DLT 535 titled as Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swami and referred to paragraphs 58, 59 and 62 of the aforesaid judgment. He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported as 1992 CRL. LJ. 319, titled as Daya Shankar Dubey vs. Subhash Kumar.
20. Heard ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
21.The foremost issue which requires consideration in the present case is whether the alleged statements made in the pleadings before the Registrar of Cooperative Society would be entitled to an absolute privilege and thus, the said statements are protected in all circumstances.
22.In the instant case, the plaintiff is aggrieved from the reply filed by the society and adopted by the defendant before the Registrar of cooperative society in the petition no. 472/DR/ARB/0506/10 titled as "D.V. Singh vs. Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 9 of 18 Dr. R.C. Mangla & ors", Ex PW2/2 and also the reply filed by the defendant in another case bearing no. 3258/DR/ARB/06/07 titled as "Paresh Nath & ors. vs. V.M. Trehan and others", Ex.PW2/3. It is pertinent to reproduce herein the allegations made against the plaintiff in Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3 as under : A. Allegations in Ex.PW2/2 :
"the aim of the plaintiff since the inception of the society is to use it as instrument in grabbing the land of the society so as to enrich himself and deprive the Society and its members from its valuable amenities in the shape of the park etc.".
B. Allegations in Ex.PW2/3 :
"the plaintiff had been habitual fault finder and had been dragging the society to all kind of disputes and litigation by filing false and vexatious complaint and petitions. The history of the society will clearly show that Mr. D.V. Singh had been filing complaints against the society since 1979 and onwards till date. He had never cooperated in the affairs of the society and he has been creating problems and difficulties in the smooth functioning of the society".
23.Before proceeding further, it is necessary to understand the term "defamation". Eminent Jurist Salmond defines it as: "The wrong of defamation consists in the publication of a false and defamatory statement respecting another person without lawful justification or excuse." Winfield defines a defamatory statement as: "Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally; or which tends to make them shun or avoid Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 10 of 18 that person".
24.In order to establish defamation, plaintiff must prove that the statement claimed to be defamatory refers to the plaintiff and the same is in writing and must be published. Publication means making the defamatory statement known to some person other than the person defamed and unless that is done, no civil action lies. Communication to the plaintiff himself is not sufficient in the eyes of law because defamation is an injury to the reputation and reputation consist in the estimation in which other holds him and not in ones own opinion.
25.The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramanian Swami (supra) has noted the distinction between the absolute privilege and qualified privilege in paragraphs 58 and has held in paragraph 60 that on grounds of public policy, absolute immunity from liability was conceived of for judges, counsel and witnesses for the reason that during judicial proceedings in court, every participative player must be free from the fear of being harassed by an action or allegation, whether true or false that he acted with malice. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that this status of absolute privilege was however denied to the tribunals not being at par with Courts. While making reference to 1960(2) ALLER 629 Addis vs. Crocker & ors, in paragraphs 62, the Hon'ble High Court observed that proceedings before the tribunals which had all the trapping of a Court were alone held eligible to be entitled for absolute privilege.
26.The question which arises for consideration is that whether Registrar of Cooperative Society is the quasi judicial authority or the tribunal not being at par with the Court. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 11 of 18 of Delhi in the judgment being CS (OS) No 503/2009 titled as Brig. B.C. Rana ( Retd.) vs. Ms. Seema Katoch & ors. decided on 15.10.2012 wherein it has been held that proceedings before the Registrar of the Cooperative Society are quasi judicial in nature and while holding so, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has referred to Section 60, 61 & 74 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 which go on to establish that the Registrar, Cooperative Society discharges adjudicatory and quasi judicial functions.
27.Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also referred to para 67 of the judgment titled Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swami (Supra) and argued that the allegations made in the reply before the Registrar of Cooperative Society are irrelevant and scandalous being unrelated to the proceedings and thus, the same anyways are not absolutely privileged communication. Relevant paragraphs no. 67 & 68 are reproduced hereunder as : "67. Even the issue of absolute privilege has remained a subject matter of considerable debate. Is absolute privilege absolute in the sense of being infinite? As late as 1998, in the decision reported as 1998(1) All ER 625, Waple v. Surrey County County Council, it was held:
"The absolute privilege which applies to statements made in the course of judicial or quasijudicial proceedings and in the documents made in such proceedings, would only be entitled where it was strictly necessary to do so in order to protect those who were to participate in the proceedings from being sued themselves."
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 12 of 18
68. The decision brings out that absolute privilege is not absolute in the context of being infinite. Even when the occasion is privileged one gets no licence to utter irrelevant and scandalous things unrelated to the proceedings. If what is stated is necessary or relevant to the proceedings, immunity would be absolute."
28.Adverting to the facts of the present case, as per the plaintiff himself, the defendant became one of the member's of Managing Committee of the society and stopped inviting the plaintiff or serving him with any notice pertaining to various meetings of the society on the plea that the plaintiff had resigned from the Managing Committee which led to filing of the petition titled as "D.V. Singh vs. Dr. R.C. Mangla & ors" before the Registrar of Cooperative Society, Delhi. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff sought injunction in the said petition from holding the meeting of the managing committee as well as from spending sum of Rs.8,00,000/ which was received by the society as compensation pertaining to acquired land of society. In the said petition, the defendant had adopted the reply filed by the society before the Registrar of Cooperative Society and made an allegation that the plaintiff is using the society as an instrument in grabbing the land of the society so as to enrich himself and deprive the society and its members from the valuable amenities in the shape of park etc. Similarly, in another case titled as "Paresh Nath & ors. vs. V.M. Trehan", the defendant being one of the respondent had alleged that the plaintiff had been habitual fault finder and had been dragging the society to all kinds of litigation by filing false and vexatious complaint and petition since 1979 onwards and had not never cooperated in the affairs of the society and creating difficulties and problems in smooth functioning of the society.
Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 13 of 18
29.In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid allegations appears to have been made in connection with the affairs of the society and such pleadings are privileged communication. Reference in this regard is made in the judgment of Hon'ble High court of Delhi reported as 95 (2002) DLT 573 titled as Punjabi Bagh Cooperative Society vs. K.L. Kishwar & anr, the relevant portion of paragraphs 13 & 15 is reproduced hereunder as: "13. ...Therefore, if any member of the society makes a complaint against the office bearers of the society regarding the affairs of the society and in the process makes some defamatory statements only in regard to the conduct of such office bearers in the management of the aforesaid society such accusation cannot constitute defamation. As already noted in none of the alleged objectionable statements reproduced above, the defendants ever made any remark regarding the personal character of the plaintiffs. Whatever they said was only in regard to the plaintiffs mismanagement of the affairs or the funds of the society. Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the case of Bhanumathi Rajah (supra) no action for defamation would lie against the defendants. If a member of the society has reasons to believe that some irregularity, illegality is being committed in the running of the affairs of the society, such member of the society is under a duty to bring it to the notice of the office bearer of the society or other authorities having control over the society. Such member will have an obligation cast on him to bring such things Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 14 of 18 to the notice of the society and vice versa office bearers or other such authorities will be under obligation to receive such complaints and look into them..."
"15. ...Viewed in this legal perspective, I think the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendants in their various communications/petitions to the plaintiffs or to the Joint Registrar or other authorities having control over the aforesaid Society fall in the category of privileged communications and no action for defamation will be maintainable...."
30.Similar is the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Brig. B.C. Rana (Retd.) vs. Seema Katoch (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also held that the statement made in the affidavit being filed by the defendants in the course of judicial proceedings before the Registrar of Cooperative Society is absolutely privileged and cannot be made basis for any defamatory action and the plaint was rejected being barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
31.In view of the above, it is held that the aforesaid allegations appears to have been made in connection with the affairs of the society and such pleadings are privileged communication and no action for defamation is maintainable. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. However, insofar as issue no. 2 is concerned, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing material facts. Issue no. 2 is thus decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages of Rs.10 Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 15 of 18 lacs, as prayed for ? OPP AND Issue No. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum on the sum of Rs.10 lacs, as prayed for ? OPP
32.Onus to proof this issue was on the plaintiff. In order to prove the damages, the plaintiff as PW3 has proved the copy of house Tax Receipts as Ex.PW 3/1 (colly); copy of the Lease agreement dated 06.07.2004 of an Industrial Shed situated at plot No. 50, Sector27C, Faridabad as Ex.PW3/2; copy of lease agreement dated 07.09.2006 of house No. 581, Sector29, Faridabad, Haryana built on plot measuring 250 sq. yards as Ex.PW3/3; property tax receipts of house No. B13, BlockB, Kalindi Colony, Delhi as Ex.PW3/4 and Ex.PW3/5 (colly).
33.As per settled law, damages recoverable in an action for defamation will depend upon the nature and character of the libel, the extent of its circulation, the position of the parties in the society, and the surrounding circumstances of the case. Court will consider the fact that the attack was entirely unprovoked, and that the defendant was culpably reckless or grossly negligent in the matter. The defendant's subsequent conduct may aggravate the damages, e.g., if he has refused to listen to any explanation, or to retract the charge he made, or has only tardily published an inadequate apology. Plea of justification, if persisted, it will tend to aggravate damages.
34.While deciding issue no. 1, this Court has already given finding that the aforesaid allegations have been made in connection with the affairs of the society and such pleadings are privileged communication and no action for Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 16 of 18 defamation will be maintainable. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has even otherwise failed to prove that the reputation of the plaintiff has been lowered in the eyes of the members of the society or his friends or his relatives by the aforesaid statements. The Plaintiff though stated in his evidence by way of affidavit in para 2(iv) as "the defendant hatched a conspiracy to defame me by way of spreading malicious propaganda and leaflets containing baseless allegations in connivance with other members of the managing committee...", no such leaflet has been placed on record. The plaintiff has not examined any member of the society to substantiate his contention that the esteem of the plaintiff has been reduced in the eyes of any person. Hence, it is not proved on record that the members of the society have regarded the plaintiff with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear or dislike.
35.The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. Durdana Zamir, reported as 2009(3) A.D.(Delhi) 703, has held as under:
" Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another's reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation, in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 17 of 18 claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such which prejudice a man's reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation."
36. Having considered the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff has even failed to prove that the alleged statements were made known to some person other than the plaintiff and unless that is done, no civil action lies. Communication to the plaintiff himself is not sufficient in the eyes of law because defamation is an injury to the reputation and reputation consist in the estimation in which other holds him and not in ones own opinion. This court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages from the defendant. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff. Issue Nos. 4 pertains to interest and has become infructuous in the light of the fact that the issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Relief
37.In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on (Manjusha Wadhwa) this 28th Day of January, 2017. Addl. District Judge08 (West) THC/Delhi/28.01.2017 Civ DJ No. 610191/2016 Shri D.V. Singh Vs. Mrs. Usha Jain Page No. 18 of 18