Delhi District Court
Smt. Geeta vs Prem Chand on 27 February, 2024
SL. NO. HEADING PAGE NO.
1 Memo of parties 3
2 BRIEF FACTS - PLAINTIFF'S CASE 4-5
3 DEFENDANT'S CASE 5-6
4 ISSUES 6
5 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE 7-10
6 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 10-13
7 Judgment 'Bhartu v Indian Express Newspapers & Ors., (1995) 13-16
32 DRJ 246, Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar & Anr. v Citi Bank N.A. &
Ors., (2008) 147 DLT 349, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad v Durdana
Zamir, (2009) 109 DRJ 357'
8 ISSUEWISE FINDINGS: Issue No. 1 and 2 16-34
Sections/ Judgments relied on
(i) Parmiter V. Coupland (1840) 6 M & W
(ii) Tournier V. National Provincial and Union Bank of England
(1924)1 KB 461
(iii) Sim V. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237
(iv) Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy" 2006 AIR
(Delhi)300
(v) Standard Chartered Bank Vs Vinay Kumar Sood, 2010
Cril.J1277
(vi) Prabhakaran vs. Gangadharan (2006) SCC OnLine Ker
302,
(vii) Joy Anto vs. C.R. Jaison & Ors. Manupatra/KE/0632/2021
(viii) Radhakrishnan Gurusamy & Ors. vs. M.R. Vinit Srivastava
Manu/TN/3491/2021
(ix) Shivaji Rao Gaikwad vs. S. Mukunchand Bothra 2018 SCC
OnLine Mad 3541
(x) Satis Chandra Chakrabarti v. Ram Dayal De1920 SCC
OnLine Cal 126
(xi) Section 52 of IPC (Good Faith)
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 1 of 39
(xii) Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal, The Law of Torts
(Xiii) Ashok Kumar Vs. Radha Kishan Vij & Ors. " 1983 (1)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 321
(xiv) Chunni Lal Vs. Narsingh Das" AIR 1918 Allahabad 69
(xv) Dhiro Koch & Anr. Vs. Gobinda Dev Mishra Bura Satria
9 Issue No. 3 and 4 34-37
Sections/ Judgments relied on
(I) Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union vs Union of India
2001 (2) SCC 294: AIR 2001 SC 416
(ii) M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. Vs M/s Nav Bharat
Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. 1996 (3) SCC 443
10 Issue No. 5 37-39
(i) Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal Vs
Badagara Jumayath Palli Dhara Committee and Others, 2004
(7) SCC 708
(ii) Thornton Vs Telegraph Media Group Ltd.
11 RELIEF 39
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 2 of 39
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Presided by: Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS
CS DJ No. 614695/2016
CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012
In the matter of:-
Smt. Geeta
D/o Sh. Prem Prakash Sharma
R/o A-1/290-A, Keshav Puram,
Delhi - 110035
.......... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Prem Chand
S/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal
R/o 10584, Gali No. 4,
Pratap Nagar, Delhi - 110007
.......... Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 27.06.2012
Date of reserving for order : 19.02.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.02.2024
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 3 of 39
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is a social activist, who works for the betterment and welfare of society particularly for poor and underprivileged persons. By making false accusations against the plaintiff and calling her a cheater, fraud, etc., the defendant had defamed her.
BRIEF FACTS PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. Briefly stated facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is a social activist, who works for the betterment and welfare of society, including poor and underprivileged persons. By making false accusations against the plaintiff and calling her a cheater, fraud, etc., the defendant had defamed her.
3. It has been averred in the plaint that defendant filed an application before the Court of Sh. N.K. Malhotra, Ld. ASCJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit no. 142/2011 titled "Raj Kumar Vs Pearey Lal", wherein it has been stated by the the defendant that "the plaintiff in connivance with one Ms. Geeta cheated the banks and other financial institutions and picking up fights with shopkeepers and calling herself the wife of the plaintiff". In the another suit no. 1002/11/10 titled "Raj Kumar Vs Rajeev Sharma" in the Court of Sh. Ajay Pandey, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, the defendant filed an application wherein it was stated that the "plaintiff in connivance with other people and mainly with one lady Ms. Geeta and some goons are into the business of extortion by filing the false cases, agreements, threatening, making complaints etc. Smt. Geeta is running a racket to extort money CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 4 of 39 and blackmail innocent persons by filing false complaint of molestation etc."
4. Plaintiff further averred that the defendant's comments were defamatory which has harassed her mentally, and damaged her reputation in the community. Through her legal counsel, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated March 30, 2012, demanding that the defendant provide damages and compensation as well as offer an unconditional apology. Police complaints were also lodged against the defendant on April 30 and May 24, 2012. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
DEFENDANT'S CASE:
5. The defendant filed a written statement and refuted the claim of the plaintiff on legal grounds as well as on merit, and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
6. It has been averred by the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable and it is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of the law. The relationship status of the plaintiff and Sh. Raj Kumar is not clear. The plaintiff has been assisting Sh. Raj Kumar in all his deeds and even the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff at the behest of Sh. Raj Kumar. The plaintiff has given various addresses to the different banks and Sh. Raj Kumar has filed various litigations against many relatives, his mother, CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 5 of 39 and brother in order to grab their properties in which the plaintiff is actively helping him. A complaint was registered against the plaintiff on 16.01.2012 by Sh. Rajiv Kumar. Hence, it is prayed that the present suit may be dismissed with heavy costs.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court on 14.03.2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from the defendant, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from threatening and harassing the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as alleged? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court, if so, its effect? OPD
6. Relief.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 6 of 39 EVIDENCE:
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
8. Smt. Geeta examined herself as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. Plaintiff relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Mark/ Ex- No. Description of Document
1 Ex. PW1/1 Certified copy of application
Photocopy of filed before the Court
of Sh. N.K. Malhotra, Ld. ASCJ,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit no.
142/2011 titled "Raj Kumar Vs
Pearey Lal"
2 Ex. PW1/2 Certified copy of application filed
by defendant in suit no. 1002/11/10
titled "Raj Kumar Vs Rajeev
Sharma" in the Court of Sh. Ajay
Pandey, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi.
3 Ex. PW1/3 Legal notice
4 Ex. PW1/4 Postal Receipt
5 Ex. PW1/5 Courier receipt
6 Ex. PW1/6 A.D. Card
7 Ex. PW1/7 Copy of complaint made to SHO,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi dated
30.04.2012
8 Ex. PW1/8 Copy of complaint to DCP (North),
Civil Line, Delhi on 24.05.2012.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 7 of 39
9. PW1 was cross-examined in detail by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. During cross-examination, plaintiff deposed as PW1 and stated that she runs an NGO by the name 'Common Bench Against Injustice' and there are seven members, including the plaintiff. PW1 further deposed that her husband's name is Sh. Raj Kumar though PW1 again deposed that Sh. Raj Kumar is not her husband but is her friend. Plaintiff further denied the suggestion that on May 14, 2012, the defendant did not come to court or appear in court. Plaintiff stated that she does not know if the defendant is party in the case pending in Court no. 119 filed by Sh. Raj Kumar. It was further deposed by PW1 that one case under Section 138 CPC was pending against her in Dwarka Court which was later settled, and the payment of the said case was made by Sh. Raj Kumar on her behalf. PW1 further stated that she filed plaint against the defendant before Women Cell. PW1 denied the suggestion that no incident was committed by the defendant on May 14, 2012. She had not lodged any complaint against the defendant on said day with the police present in Tis Hazari Courts. She denied the suggestion that she filed the present case to pressurise the defendant to settle the matter of Sh. Raj Kumar.
10. Sh. Raj Kumar was examined as PW2 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. PW2 had testified in sync with the PW1. PW2 stated that the defendant is his real uncle and he knew the plaintiff for 17-18 years. He stated that the plaintiff CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 8 of 39 came to court on 14.05.2012 to help him, as he is illiterate. PW2 admitted that there is security at every entrance of the court, and the defendant had not abused or used filthy language against the plaintiff but had threatened her on May 14, 2012. No police complaint against the defendant was lodged, as he had fled from the site. The defendant had not given a beating to the plaintiff but had pushed and caught her by the shoulder. He further deposed that he did not remember if he signed his statement as the husband of the plaintiff in Dwarka Courts in the 138 NI Act matter.
11. Sh. Jasraj Verma, Public Relation Inspector (Postal) Malka Ganj, PO, Delhi was examined as PW3 who stated that the summoned record has been weeded out and placed certificate issued by Sub Postmaster Distt. Court, Tis Hazari and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/1.
12. Head Constable Ram Niwas, PS Subzi Mandi was examined as PW3 who brought the complaint register from PS Subzi Mandi, having the entry of complaint by the plaintiff against defendant regarding harassment and threatening on 30.04.2012 vide complaint no. 262/C-346. The copy of the register was Ex. PW3/1.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 9 of 39
13. During Cross examination, PW3 stated that a complaint was received by PS Subzi Mandi Thana which was filed by the complainant vide no. 80/20 dated 30.04.2012 and the same has been received at Police Post Tis Hazari on 02.05.2012 and the same has been recorded in the complaint register vide no. 262/C-
346. PW3 further stated that he does not have the personal knowledge about the case as he was not posted at the relevant time at Tis Hazari Police Post PS Subzi Mandi. He further stated that he had no knowledge about the investigation in the said complaint.
14. SI Ravi, Complaint Branch, North District was examined as PW4 who brought the original copy of complaint dated 24.05.2012 which was received vide entry no. 148-G dated 13.06.2012 received from the office of Commissioner of Police Delhi by Smt. Geeta against Sh. Premchand regarding harassment, torture and threatening, defamation, Criminal Intimidation etc., copy of which was Ex. PW4/1.
15. No other witness was examined and PE was closed on 10.11.2014.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
16. Defendant Sh. Prem Chand examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. Defendant relied upon the following documents:
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 10 of 39 S. Mark/ Ex- No. Description of Document No. 1 Ex. DW1/1 Certified copy of the suit no. S-
1002/11/10 titled "Raj Kumar Vs Rajiv Sharma" (already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2) 2 Ex. DW1/2 Copy of the claim/compensation petition under Motor Vehicle Act filed by Smt. Shammi wife of Sh. Raj Kumar, against Sh. Raj Kumar & Ors.
3 Ex. DW1/3 Certified copy of order dated 17.03.2012 of Ld. MM, Ms. Swati Katiyar 4 Ex. DW1/4 Certified Copy of the statement of Sh.
Raj Kumar dated 17.03.2012 (already Ex. PW2/DX1) 5 Ex. DW1/5 Certified copy of the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act filed by HDB Financial services Ltd. against the plaintiff.
6 Ex. DW1/6 Closing report by CAW Cell, North Distt. (already Ex.PW4/1(colly)) 7 Mark A and B Copy of complaints dated 02.11.2010 and dated 08.11.2010 made by the plaintiff and Sh. Raj Kumar.
8 Mark C Statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank in the name of Himanshu Chauhan.
9 Mark D Copy of legal notice dated 27.01.2010 sent by HDFC Bank to the plaintiff 10 Mark E Copy of statement of Account by Kotak Mahindra Bank to the plaintiff 11 Mark F Copy of complaint dated 23.06.2011 CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 11 of 39 made by the plaintiff to MCD 12 Mark G Copy of complaint dated 16.01.2012.
13 Mark H Copy of statement of plaintiff dated 10.09.2012.
7 Ex. PW1/7 Copy of complaint made to SHO, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, dated 30.04.2012 8 Ex. PW1/8 Copy of complaint to DCP (North), Civil Line, Delhi on 24.05.2012.
17. During cross examination, DW1 deposed that there was a case between him and the plaintiff which was withdrawn by the plaintiff and there is no other case between the plaintiff and him except the present one. He stated that Sh. Raj Kumar filed 4-5 suits against him. Sh. Raj Kumar asked him to compromise the matter about 5-6 years ago. He deposed that he does not know the document Ex. PW2 was filed by him in which court bearing his signatures at point A.
18. DW1 deposed that he does not know whether Sh. Raj Kumar filed suit against Sh. Rajiv. However, he again stated that Sh. Raj Kumar filed the suit against Sh. Rajiv Sharma which is in relation to money transaction. DW1 further deposed that he did not know whether any complaint was made in PS Sadar Bazar and before Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. However, he voluntarily stated that Sh. Raj Kumar and Smt. Geeta made complaint before DCP. He further deposed that he does not know CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 12 of 39 if Smt. Shammi @ Baby wife of Sh. Raj Kumar filed a suit against Sh. Raj Kumar or not.
19. No other witness was examined and DE was closed vide Court order dated 17.12.2018.
20. This court has heard the final arguments of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties on 19.02.2024 and perused the record carefully.
21. Before giving the findings qua the issues framed in this suit, on 16.12.2020, this court finds it relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Bhartu v Indian Express Newspapers & Ors., (1995) 32 DRJ 246, Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar & Anr. v Citi Bank N.A. & Ors., (2008) 147 DLT 349, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad v Durdana Zamir, (2009) 109 DRJ 357' because the said judgments, broadly explain the law regarding tort of defamation and the law regarding pleadings in a plaint of a suit, based on the tort of defamation.
22. In Bhartu (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with a suit premised on the tort of defamation. After taking note of the various definitions of defamation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that, CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 13 of 39 "...reputation is the estimation in which a person is held by others. A man's estimate of himself is not his reputation."
23. In Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar (supra) also, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with a suit premised on the tort of defamation. While allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed, as under:
"10. ...Even otherwise 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 Plaintiffs. Where a person alleges his reputation has been damaged it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking people of society or his friends or relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feelings or annoys him. Injuries to feelings of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. ..."
24. In Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad (supra) also, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with a suit premised on the tort of defamation. While dismissing the suit, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed, as under:
"7. 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 dis esteem 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 CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 14 of 39 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, acquaintance 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 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.
8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an oblique meaning but the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the Court to read the words in a manner in which the Plaintiff himself understands it, the Plaintiff has to plead that the libel was understood by the readers with the knowledge of subject or extensive facts as was being understood by the Plaintiff."
25. From the above noted judgments it may safely be deduced-
(a) that in a suit based on the tort of defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the impugned libel/slander has resulted in lowering of his reputation in the eyes/estimation of his peers, consisting of his friends and family or in the eyes of the general public, consisting of fair and reasonable persons;
(b) that in the plaint of a suit premised on the tort of defamation, the plaintiff should plead all relevant particulars, especially the names of his friends, family members or members of general public, in whose eyes/estimation, his/her reputation has been lowered;
(c) that in the plaint of a suit for damages, premised on the tort of defamation, the plaintiff should clearly state the different heads (ordinary damages, special damages, aggravated damages etc.) under which, the plaintiff is claiming damages and
(d) that if the grievance of the plaintiff is qua words, which have a double meaning, the plaintiff should specifically plead the meaning of the words, as understood by him/her and his peers or the general public.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 15 of 39 ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2 : "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from the defendant, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from threatening and harassing the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP"
26. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff, and to discharge the onus, plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and Sh. Raj Kumar as PW2. Plaintiff also relied upon various documents, particularly PW1/1 and PW1/2, Both PW1 and PW2 deposed on the lines of the averments of the plaint.
27. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the grounds that the defendant made certain statements before the courts wherein false allegations were levelled against the plaintiff despite the fact that plaintiff was not a party to those proceedings; and by this way he defamed the plaintiff, Secondly, the defendant has been spreading rumors against the plaintiff in the society and lastly, the defendant attacked the plaintiff when on May 14, 2012 when she visited Tis Hazari Court.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 16 of 39
28. PW-1, deposed that allegations in judicial proceedings (Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2) are defamatory, and the same has been made, knowingly that the same is false. Plaintiff has quoted and relied upon the contents of those statements both in plaint and affidavit of evidence respectively. Defendant in written statement has admitted that he has made these statements against the plaintiff in previous judicial proceedings Ex-PW1/1 and Ex- PW1/2 and he also exhibited the copy of the suit in his evidence as Ex DW1/1 which was already on record as Ex Ex-PW1/1; however, he took the plea that it was correct and necessary to defend himself. Since the plaintiff was helping Sh. Raj Kumar and they were acting in connivance. These facts were necessary and true facts and therefore on the basis of the facts narrated in judicial proceedings, no action for defamation or damages lies.
29. While concluding the arguments Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that averments made by the defendants are squarely fall within the ambit of defamation which made him liable. However, Ld. Counsel for the defendant concluded that these averments have been made in the judicial proceedings only out of good faith and to defend himself which would fall squarely under the ambit of the principle of equity, justice and good conscience as these facts were necessary for proving the issues involved in the civil suit. These averments were essential and relevant to contest the civil suit which was pending before the court and made in good faith to advance his cause of justice.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 17 of 39 Defence of 'Absolute Privilege' were also claimed by the defendant.
30. At this juncture it is apposite to mention what the term defamation stands for. Parke B in Parmiter V. Coupland (1840) 6 M&W 105 at 108, defined defamation by Libel as: "A publication... which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
However, this definition was not considered to be sufficient. In Tournier V. National Provincial and Union Bank of England (1924)1 KB 461 Scrutton LJ said: "I do not myself think this ancient formula is sufficient in all cases, for words may damage the reputation of a man as a business man, which no one would connect with hatred ridicule or contempt." Lord Atkin too, not only in Tornier's case (supra) but in Sim v. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237, also expressed the view that the definition of Parke B seemed to be too narrow. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled, "Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy" 2006 AIR (Delhi)300, explained the term 'defamation' in detail and observed :
"Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another. What statements are defamatory and the span of defences varies from jurisdiction to jurisdictions but there is common agreement in all jurisdiction that statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt one's feelings are not actionable. Common element in all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the reputation."
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 18 of 39
31. On the basis of the abovecited judgment and by also referring the dictum of case of 'Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood', 2010 CriL.J 1277:- it follows that the defamation is/ are, i. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
ii. Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations.
iii. The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned".
32. Thus it is clear that to constitute tort of 'defamation', there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the tort of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the maker of the statement intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether the plaintiff actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged. Defamation only requires blameworthy mind.
33. The first question which needs to be determined that whether statement made in judicial proceedings may be considered as publication for the purpose of defamation. To CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 19 of 39 answer this question reliance may be placed on K. Prabhakaran v. Gangadharan, 2006 SCC OnLine Ker 302, (para-7) where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that, "in a matter where it is alleged that defamatory statements against complainant were made in a written statement filed before the Court held that, once a statement has been filed in the Court of law, that statement can be taken as published. If such statement amounts to per se defamatory, then it is the duty of the accused to establish that, they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC.". Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed in "Madhuri Mukund v. Mukund Martand, 1990 SCC OnLine Bom 410, "that the imputations made in a proceeding which is filed in a Court is clearly a publication. It further observed that even a publication to an authority over the person against whom imputations are made must be held to be sufficient publication falling within the purview of Section 499 IPC.
(emphasis supplied) Further reliance may also be placed on the various judgments such as 'Prabhakaran vs. Gangadharan (2006) SCC OnLine Ker 302,; Joy Anto vs. C.R. Jaison & Ors. Manupatra/KE/0632/2021 , and Radhakrishnan Gurusamy & Ors. vs. M.R. Vinit Srivastava Manu/TN/3491/2021 and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad vs. S. Mukunchand Bothra 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 3541, wherein it was held that filing a pleadings in a Court constitutes Publication.
34. It is further apposite to mention that as opposed to defamation law in criminal cases there is no codified law in India covering the tort of defamation in civil proceedings. It is entirely CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 20 of 39 based on the values of equity, justice, and good conscience. Thus, in terms of defamation law, the potentiality and ability of the statement to provoke negative sentiment or opinion towards the plaintiff serves as a litmus test for whether it is defamatory. A statement must be considered by the standard of ordinary, right- thinking members of society at the relevant time. The plaintiff must have been conveyed an imputation or had his office, profession, calling, trade, or business discredited or defamed as a result of the words, or they must have caused him to be avoided or viewed with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disrespect. In Satis Chandra Chakrabarti v. Ram Dayal De 1920 SCC OnLine Cal 126, Five Judges Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that, The civil liability for defamation in India does not stand on the same basis as the criminal. A suit for damages for a defamatory statement, made on oath or otherwise, by a party to a judicial proceeding, in the absence of statutory rules on the subject, is governed by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, which, according to a large preponderance of judicial opinion, are identical with the corresponding relevant rules of English Common Law."
35. Now coming to the exception pleaded by the learned Counsel for the defendant, there can be no second opinion that a plea of good faith is a matter to be pleaded and proved. Good faith cannot be readily inferred. The term 'good faith' has been defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows:
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 21 of 39 "52. "Good Faith".--- Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention."
36. A close reading of the above definition would make one clearly understand that if a statement has been made without due care and attention, then it cannot be said that he acted in good faith. To defend himself, the defendant must show that he was acting in good faith and had no malice when he made the statement against the plaintiff.
37. It is pertinent to discuss here that whether the statements made during the legal proceedings are protected by any privilege as pleaded by the defendant or if they could give rise to a suit for damages. In order to address this question it is relevant to reproduce the contents from the book 'Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal, The Law of Torts, which defines the privilege as "privilege means that a person stands in such relations to facts of the case that he is justified in saying or writing what would be slanderous or libelous in anyone else". The phrase absolute privilege is defined as "a statement is absolutely privileged when no action lies for it even though it is false and defamatory, and made with express malice." It may be concluded in a manner that qualified privilege shields a defendant from a defamation action only when the privilege is properly exercised in performing legal or moral duties. Conversely, absolute privilege immunises a defendant, no matter how wrongful or motivated the action is.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 22 of 39
38. As far as Privilege is concerned, "Ashok Kumar Vs. Radha Kishan Vij & Ors. " 1983 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 321. In this judgment single Judge Bench of Hon'ble High Court observed that:
"In civil actions for damages there is what has been called "judicial privilege". Neither party, witness, counsel nor judge can be sued civilly for words spoken or written in the course of any proceeding before any court or tribunal recognised by law, and thus though the words written or spoken were written or spoken maliciously without any justification or excuse, and from personal illwill and anger against the person defamed. This absolute privilege has been conceded on the grounds of public policy to ensure freedom of speech where it is essential that freedom of speech should exist. The freedom of communication is of such paramount importance that civil suits for defamation cannot be entertained at all."
39. In case titled, "Chunni Lal Vs. Narsingh Das" AIR 1918 Allahabad 69, Full Bench wherein it has been held:
" Statements, if defamatory, contained in a petition addressed to a Magistrate, might not be absolutely privileged for a criminal court, but the privilege was absolute in a Court of civil jurisdiction."
40. While various High Courts have approached this matter in different ways, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court settled this issue while dwelling on the question of privilege observed in the case of 'Ram Jethmalani vs Subramaniam Swamy' 2006 SCC OnLine Del 14:
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 23 of 39 "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 Waple v. Surrey County Council((1998) 1 WLR 860 : (1998) 1 All ER 625, it was held:
The absolute privilege which applies to statements made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial 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.
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.
(emphasis supplied)
41. In Dhiro Koch & Anr. Vs. Gobinda Dev Mishra Bura Satria", 65IND. CAS.204 "The present case illustrates how the privilege can be and is abused. The plaintiff was not party to the suit in which defendants made a defamatory statement. The statement was absolutely irrelevant and was made out of malice. We think, however, that pleadings of parties stand on a different footing from statements made on oath by witnesses..... a witness can be compelled to give evidence and to answer any question relevant to the subject matter of the suit but the statements of a party in his pleadings are entirely within its own discretion...... we are of the opinion that defamatory statements made by parties in pleadings are not absolutely privileged.
(emphasis supplied).
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 24 of 39
42. By the dictum of abovecited judgments it is clear that the old school of thought which was in confirmity with English Law held that no Civil Suit can be filed as against defamation emanating from judicial proceedings. This school of thought was followed by even the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Case (supra) in 1983. However, in Ram Jeth Malani's (supra) case the Hon'ble Delhi High Court concluded that the Absolute Privilege in Civil defamation is not absolute or infinite. In the light of aforesaid case laws, it can be safely deduced that whether the permissible line of qualified privilege has been breached or not depends on the fact and circumstances of each case. It has to be seen as to whether the language used in pleadings during the Court Proceedings was such which was strictly necessary in the facts and circumstances to plead or defend the matter.
43. As a result, a statement made by a party during court proceedings that is inherently defamatory or has the potential to defame any party may be the subject of a suit seeking damages for defamation; the party making the statement cannot assert the defence of absolute privilege as a matter of right. Therefore, the defendant's plea of 'Absolute Privilege' is liable to be rejected as the privilege is not absolute but qualified and now it has to be examined on merits that whether the statement made by the defendant against the plaintiff may attract any liability against him.
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 25 of 39
44. To properly adjudicate this case, this court must examine the plaintiff's claim in light of the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, as well as the applicability of the defendant's defence of good faith. In the present matter plaintiff appeared as PW1 and deposed that she was pushed or threatened by the defendant on May 14, 2012; however, this court is not inclined to accept that this incident ever happened for many reasons. First of all, the plaintiff did not lodge any complaint immediately about the happening of the incident by herself, nor did Sh. Raj Kumar mention it before the court in which he was appearing on that day. Nor the plaintiff or PW2 made any PCR call to inform the happening of such an incident within the precincts of Tis Hazari Court. Further, not making a police complaint about the happening of such an incident also raises questions about the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. However, PW1 filed a complaint with the concerned DCP after ten days of the alleged incident, i.e., on May 24, 2012. The reason for not filing the complaint on the same day was not explained by the plaintiff even during the final arguments. It is also difficult to believe that such an incident occurred in court, where there is strict security at every gate, and that nobody saw it. It is also puzzling that the plaintiff chose not to examine any person as plaintiff's witnesses who were at the gate to support plaintiff's claim. Since PW2 is an interesting witness, his testimony needs to be examined carefully and cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Since no independent or public witness is examined by the CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 26 of 39 plaintiff to support her stand, therefore, there are substantial reasons to doubt that such an incident actually occurred.
45. Further, plaintiff relied upon the EX PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2 statements made by the defendant against plaintiff. This court is of the considered opinion that the plea of the defendant that he made the statements in good faith to defend him is entitled to be accepted on the basis of the following discussion. It is noteworthy to mention that while deposing as PW1 plaintiff took contradictory stands and did not answer in a lucid manner that how she is connected to Sh. Raj Kumar. On the one hand, PW1 accepted that Sh. Raj Kumar as her husband, but immediately she retracted from her stand and voluntarily deposed that he was just her friend. Though in the document, Mark-H plaintiff admitted that she has been living with PW2 for the last 12 years. However, PW2 admitted that her wife is Ms. Shammi, but the plaintiff resides with PW2 at the same address in which he resides. During her deposition as PW1, the plaintiff admitted that some cases or complaints were pending as well which are available on the record as Mark C to Mark G and DW1/1 to 3 to DW-1/5, that had been filed by or against her, and one of them had been settled by the PW2 by claiming him as plaintiff's husband. In Ex DW1/3 and DW1/4, PW2 mentioned his name as the husband of the plaintiff and paid Rs 45,000/- to the Complainant Bank on her behalf. In Ex DW1/1 it has specifically been mentioned in various paragraphs by the PW2 that the plaintiff in the present CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 27 of 39 suit is his wife. Same as the position reiterated in Mark A and Mark B wherein police complaint lodged by the PW2 and it is mentioned there that plaintiff is his wife.
46. This court is considering it relevant to clarify that the status of PW1 and PW2's relationship is not a matter that this court is deciding, nor does it seems appropriate for this court to hold any views on it. This court believes that it is the constitutional right of every individual to live their life as they see fit, provided that they do so within the bounds of the law. However, this court discussed in the paragraphs above that the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience play a major role in determining whether or not defamation qualifies as a tort. Thus, it is imperative that the plaintiff establish her case in a way that tilts the scales in favour of the aforementioned, well- established principles. Taking contradictory stands before the administrative and judicial authorities is suffice to hold that the equity doesn't lies in favour of the plaintiff. It is settled law that one who seeks equity must do equity and hence if the plaintiff is not approaching the court with the correct details then this court doesn't hesitate to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for any discretionary relief based on equitable grounds.
47. After taking into consideration, the whole set of circumstances it is sufficient to presume to the person of ordinary prudence or give an impression that there is something which is CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 28 of 39 not correct and therefore they both are taking different stands about their relationship before various authorities. It is not alien to reach the conclusion by any ordinary person that if a person is constantly doing something clandestinely or not disclosing the true facts to the person with whom he is dealing then there must have been something that is not correct.
48. Plaintiff is aggrieved with that defendant called her fraud etc. in his application Ex PW1/1. Broadly speaking, fraud can be described as the systematic fabrication and manipulation of facts that are made to seem real in order to gain an advantage. Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act defines fraud and it includes any active concealment of fact in its ambit. Furthermore, if someone is not honest in their actions, they could be referred to as a fraud in popular culture or in common parlance, a person may be called a fraud if that person is not clean in his or her deeds. It is not disputed from the record of the case that plaintiff and PW2 have been taking contradictory stands about the status of their relationship not only before the persons with whom they have been dealing but also with before the judicial authorities. Furthermore, it is readily apparent by the record that the plaintiff and PW2 gave different addresses and different parentage to banking institutions and other authorities. This also gives a reason to suspect the good conscience of the plaintiff and PW2. Furthermore, documents Ex DW1/5 establish that HDB Financial Services Ltd. filed a case against the plaintiff under Section 138 of the NI Act. Documents Ex DW-1/3 to DW-1/5 and Mark C to CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 29 of 39 Mark E showing that the plaintiff received notices from HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank respectively are revealing that banking institutions has filed cases or sent notices against the plaintiff and PW2 and this fact has not been refuted or contradicted by the plaintiff in her entire testimony except making routine assertions and by giving normal suggestions during cross examination. Even the meaning of cheating was categorically asked from the DW1 during his cross examination, to which he replied "I do not know the meaning of cheating". It manifests that the term 'cheater or fraud' used by the defendant in the previous judicial proceedings were used in a general or generic sense but not in a specific manner. Hence, no malice may be attributed to the defendant.
49. It is also an admitted fact that Sh. Raj Kumar has instituted multiple cases against his own relatives including the defendant in present case and defendant is appearing with the PW2 in the courts with him. Even PW2 admitted in his cross examination that PW1 came to the court on May 14, 2012 as he is illiterate. It follows that it is evident that they have been supporting one another, making the defendant's claims that they are acting in concert seems tenable.
50. Be that as it may, it is a settled proposition of law that the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. The plaintiff has not examined any witnesses who could corroborate or CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 30 of 39 substantiate the plaintiff's claims. Even, while deposing as PW1, plaintiff did not mention the name of any specific person or persons before whom she was defamed, or rumours were spread about the plaintiff by the defendant. It is also worth noting that the plaintiff has not filed any evidence to prove that how she was defamed by the submissions of the defendant which were made during the judicial proceeding and that too for proving defendant's own stand in the pending litigation. Making counter- arguments to defend his cause does not necessarily constitute defamation. Every individual has the statutory right to defend himself in court, and counter-arguments are required for this purpose. However, it may not be considered defamation unless the allegations are made maliciously or without and justifiable reason. If courts began to view or accept every counter-allegation as defamation, litigants might be silenced, and the justice process would eventually stall. Defendant has made certain statements against the plaintiff that were very relevant to the issue in hand and used by defendant to defend his cause in that litigation which was initiated by the PW2 therefore, it cannot be said that whatever was stated by him were stated without due care and attention and hence no case of defamation may be made out ipso facto.
51. Defendant filed an application to implead himself in the ongoing litigation as the possession of his shop 5344, Sadar Bazar, Gandhi Market, Delhi, was under threat. While deposing CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 31 of 39 as DW1 it was stated by the defendant that "Sh. Raj Kumar (PW2) filed 4-5 cases against him". It is an admitted fact by PW1 and PW2 that plaintiff has been supporting Sh. Rajkumar in his court cases. As a result, this court is convinced by the defendant's plea that the allegations were made to prove that the plaintiff and PW2 were actually working in close collaboration and that allegations were made solely in good faith to defend his own cause rather than to defame the plaintiff. Therefore, it is evident that plea of the defendant for the claim of good faith is liable to be accepted. Hence good faith also lies in the favour of the defendant as whatever he had stated was to protect its own interest and without any malice against the plaintiff. Plaintiff has miserably failed to refute the documents relied upon by the defendants to substantiate its claim of good faith by producing any documentary evidence or witness in the court during the trial. Except the averments made by the plaintiff there is nothing on record which may tilt the scale of preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plaintiff.
52. It is a settled law, in a suit for damages for defamation, the plaintiff is required to prove that he is the person defamed by the defamatory words or that the imputation was directed against him. For proving the allegations of alleged loss caused due to defamation, neither any detail nor document has been filed by plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced any witness in support of his allegations of defamation. It is further necessary for the CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 32 of 39 plaintiff to provide evidence of how she has suffered and got defamed as a result of the defendant's statements. Which person in society has her reputation been lowered in the eyes of? It is a widely recognised law that lowering one's own self-esteem and reputation in his or her own eyes does not constitute defamation, but it must be in the eyes of the general public. Plaintiff has not examined any independent witnesses to back up this claim. It is not true that an independent witness' testimony cannot be relied on, but it must be done with due care. When it is established that they are both assisting each other in court or administrative proceedings, he being an interested witness, therefore, acting solely on PW2's testimony is extremely unsafe. In the absence of any independent witness or evidence proving that she was defamed by the defendant's statements, it is fair to conclude that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate her case. Therefore, the notion of justice demands that in the absence of any cogent or credible evidence that may support the cause of the plaintiff, she is not entitled to the same, and the plaintiff's cause must be defeated.
53. Plaintiff also prayed for the permanent injunction against the defendant. However, it has neither been pleaded nor come on record by the plaintiff that, after filing the suit, the defendant has ever stated anything against the plaintiff that may have the potential to cause defamation; therefore, the defendant may not be stopped from using his constitutional right to express his CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 33 of 39 views, however, only up to the extent of the legitimate precincts of law. Therefore, no injunction may be issued against the defendant in these circumstances. In view of the above discussion this court is deciding both the issues in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3 & 4"3. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as alleged? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD"
54. For the sake of convenience this court is of the view that both of these issues must be decided together. The onus to prove both these issues were upon the defendant. The meaning of expression "cause of action" has been duly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union vs Union of India 2001 (2) SCC 294:
AIR 2001 SC 416' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had observed that the expression cause of action in its restricted sense was used to refer to the circumstances forming infraction of the right of a party or the immediate occasion for the action. Whereas in its wider sense, the term cause of action was used to describe every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support her right to a judgment in her favour from a court of law. Relevant extract of observation CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 34 of 39 made in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union VS Union of India (Supra) are note in this case and are reproduced below:¬ "The expression cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in cause of action".
55. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. Vs M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. 1996 (3) SCC 443' that the cause of action consists of a bundle of fact which give cause to enforce the legal right for redressal an injury in a court of law and it includes every fact, which would be required to be proved by the plaintiff in order to support her right to a judgment from the court. Relevant extract of observations made in the case of M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. Vs M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. (Supra) is reproduced below:¬ "It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law. The cause of action means, therefore, every fact, which if transferred, it CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 35 of 39 would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise."
56. In the light of aforecited observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovecited cases of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union VS Union of India (Supra) and M/s South East Asia Shipping Ltd. Vs M/s Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), it can safely be concluded that a cause of action is a bundle of facts on the basis of which a right accrues in favour of one party to sue another party and to claim the relief in respect of the infringement of his rights by another party from a Court of law. Cause of action thus refers to a set of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining a favourable judgment from a court of law.
57. In the present case, the plaintiff has duly disclosed the circumstances under which the defendant made statements, which prima facie appear to be statements that were not made in good taste. The plaintiff had derived her right to sue the defendant by elaborately explaining in the plaint the manner in which plaintiff had been allegedly defamed by the defendant by making adverse remarks against her in the court proceedings, wherein she was not even a party. Plaintiff served legal notice to CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 36 of 39 defendant Ex. PW1/3. Even the defendant has admitted the contents of the applications wherein allegations were levelled against the plaintiff in the present case.
58. Thus, the facts and circumstances from which the plaintiff has claimed to have derived her right to sue the defendant has been elaborately enumerated by the plaintiff in the plaint. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff without any cause of action. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by arriving at a finding that the plaintiff has elaborately explained her cause of action to institute the present suit in the plaint. However, considering the above discussions of Issue no.1 and 2 this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish any case in her favour and therefore, she is not entitled to any relief against the defendant in the present suit. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. In totality, the plaintiff has failed to prove her cause of action against the defendant on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, ISSUE NO. 5 "5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court, if so, its effect? OPD"
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 37 of 39
59. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. However, defendant has failed to prove this issue as there is nothing on record to substantiate that the plaintiff has actually suppressed the material facts except her bald averments in support of her contentions and have failed to discharge the onus. The defendant has not placed on record any document to support his averments as regards to this issue except the fact that the plaintiff has failed to explain the nature of her relationship with the PW2. However, it was not the issue in controversy before this court and hence only on this ground it will not be correct to hold that the plaintiff has hidden something material. Even during the final arguments nothing was brought to the notice of this court to show that what are the material facts which have been suppressed by the plaintiff and its effect on the present matter. The defendant has merely pointed out the contradictory stands taken by the plaintiff (PW1) and Sh. Raj Kumar (PW2) in the present case and other court proceedings about their status of relationship; however, this does not suffice to establish that the plaintiff has suppressed those material facts that are relevant for the just adjudication of the present case. In view of the same issue no. 5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
60. Before parting with this judgment, it is clarified that this judgment has been passed, after taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs Badagara Jumayath Palli Dhara CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 38 of 39 Committee and Others, 2004 (7) SCC 708, wherein it has been held that a plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of his case and not the weakness, if any, found in the case of the defendant. Also, it is clarified that an overall assessment of this suit gives an indisputable impression that the grievance of the plaintiff qua defamation by the defendant, does not meet the 'threshold of seriousness', discussed by the Queen's Bench of the United Kingdom's High Court in Thornton vs Telegraph Media Group Ltd.
RELIEF
61. In view of the findings of this court, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
62. No order as to cost.
63. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
64. File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed by
SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2024.03.23
SHARMA 16:28:50 +0530
Announced in the open court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on February 27, 2024 ADJ-02/Central/THC/Delhi
CS DJ No. 614695/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000878-2012 Smt. Geeta Vs Prem Chand Page no. 39 of 39