Delhi District Court
Shri P.S. Taneja vs Ms. Poonam on 17 February, 2010
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 12, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 467/08
IN THE MATTER OF
Shri P.S. Taneja
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh Taneja
R/o E22, Kalindi Colony,
New Delhi110065
...........Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Poonam,
D/o Late Sh. Tej Singh,
R/o B13, Kalindi Colony,
New Delhi110065
.........Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 28.11.2000
Reserved for judgment on : 08.02.2010
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.02.2010
Suit For Recovery of Damages
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
Judgment
1 This is suit for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/ for
damages filed by the plaintiff. Briefly stated the facts of the
case are:
(a) Plaintiff is a resident of Kalindi Colony and is
owner of property bearing no. E22, Kalindi Colony,
New Delhi.
(b) Plaintiff is a member of Swatantra Cooperative
House Building Society Ltd., which acquired the
land and developed Kalindi Colony, New Delhi and
dealing with the affairs of the Society being one of
its residents. Plaintiff has engaged in the business
of transport. He has been holding an important
position in Delhi Contract Bus Association,
concerned with the transporters of Delhi and is an
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
income tax assessee.
(c) Municipal Corporation of Delhi sanctioned a
lay out plan of Kalindi Colony by its resolution no.
11 dated 01.10.1958, whereby approved 98
residential plots and 7 commercial plots.
(d) Earlier, managing committee of the society
allotted unapproved plots in the pockets of the open
areas of the society with the condition that in case
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi rejected or
refused the lay out plan or passed it with
modification, those purchasers will obtain refund of
payments made by them to the society, after
deduction of expenses incurred by the society in the
process and the mother of the defendant Smt.
Parkashwati was one of such allottee or purchaser
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
of the plot. Society made number of efforts to have
revised the lay out plan of the colony approved, but
it failed in its efforts Municipal Corporation of Delhi
did not revise the lay out plan of the colony and
approved only 98 residential plots, subject to the
condition that all the remaining area shown as
vacant sites, lawns etc. shall not be utilized for any
other purpose and these would be handed over by
the society to the corporation free of cost at the time
of taking over the services of Kalindi Colony.
(e) Society handed over all vacant sites in the
Colony to Municipal Corporation of Delhi on
31.05.1979. Thereafter, all vacant sites in the
colony vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(f) Defendant and his brother Sh. D. V. Singh
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
wanted to have a building plan sanctioned from the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the unapproved
plot allotted to their mother, in collusion with the
official of Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the
sanctioned lay out plan of the colony, which gave
rise to litigation between the society, parties to the
suit and their residents. During the period of
litigation, Municipal Corporation of Delhi assured
the said society by its letter dated 08.07.1991 that
the sites reserved for open space vest with the
corporation and would utilized for carving out
additional plots.
(g) Defendant submitted a building plan for
approval in respect of said plot alleged to be E25
(New) which did not exist and form part of vacant
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
sites handed over to the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi by the society on 31.05.1979 and did not
supply the documents required by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi. Defendant filed an appeal
against Municipal Corporation of Delhi before
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Tribunal. Plaintiff
moved an application there to implead him as a
party but was not impleaded. He was advised to
assist the court in the matter.
(h) The appeal filed by the defendant against the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi was dismissed by the
Tribunal on 17.07.1992, against which defendant
filed an appeal before the Administrator of Delhi.
Appeal was allowed on 06.01.1994. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi filed Civil Writ Petition no.
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
1460/94 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against
the order and the said writ petition was allowed by
the Hon'ble High Court on 29.01.1999. Defendant
filed Civil Appeal no. 4246 of 2000 arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 11906 of 1999 before Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and the said appeal was
dismissed on 27.7.2000. Thereafter, the defendant
sought review and her review petition was also
dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on
17.10.2000.
(i) In order to disrepute and defame the plaintiff
amongst member of the Swatantra Cooperative
House Building Society Ltd., residents of Kalindi
colony, and his relations, friends and well wishers,
the defendant made false allegations and
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
imputations against the plaintiff in rejoinder affidavit
dated 24.11.99 filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, knowing fully well that the said allegations
were false and untrue. Defendant made
scandalous and vexatious allegations, unnecessary
to the subject and misused and abused the process
of the court with a view to reduce the plaintiff in the
estimation of others. Defendant made scandalous
allegations in para no. 10 and 17 of the affidavit filed
before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(j) Defendant and her brother Sh. D. V. Singh
made imputations against the plaintiff in order to
harm his reputation in the colony since beginning.
(k) Defendants published the aforesaid
imputations concerning the plaintiff intending to
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
harm or knowing or having reasons to believe that
such imputations will harm and defame the plaintiff
amongst the residents of Kalindi Colony in particular
and amongst his relations and friends in general.
Plaintiff has been let down, downgraded and grossly
insulted by the defendant by publication of the
aforesaid imputations in the rejoinder affidavit. By
this action, the defendant has damaged the
reputation of the plaintiff and has tarnished his
image beyond repair. The imputations published by
the defendant in pleadings and rejoinder affidavit
are libelous and these have brought disreputation
to the plaintiff and contempt in the eyes of his
friends, colleagues and others known to him in the
society and residents of the Kalindi Colony. The
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
imputations made by the defendant caused mental
agony to the plaintiff and it adversely affected his
health and welfare. Plaintiff sent notice dated
22.11.2000 to the defendant but the defendant had
failed to comply with the same.
2 Written statement filed by the defendant wherein it is
objected that suit is without cause of action and also barred by
time. It is objected that the plaintiff is not the original member
of Swatantra Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. It is not
denied that Smt. Prakash Wati, mother of the defendant, was
allotted plot no. E25 (new) in Kalindi Colony by the society. It
is further submitted that after the death of the mother of
defendant, defendant and her brother Sh. D.V. Singh came into
possession of the said plot. It is further stated that defendant
and her brother continued to be owners of the said plot. It is
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
further submitted that in seventies a suit was filed by the
plaintiff against corporation in which the legal heirs of deceased
Smt. Prakash Wati were also made parties. The said suit was
dismissed as withdrawn. Filing of appeal by the defendant is
not denied. It is also not denied that the plaintiff had moved an
application for impleadment him as a party. It is not denied
that the plaintiff filed rejoinder affidavit dated 24.11.99 before
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that
defendant at no point of time ever informed the members of
society, residents of Kalindi Colony, relations friends and well
wishers of the plaintiff about the contents of the rejoinder
affidavit unless the same was made known to them by the
plaintiff himself. It is further submitted that there was no
question of such allegations coming to the knowledge of any
other person except the court in which the same was filed or
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
the persons connected with that matter. It is also not denied
that the plaintiff was the part of managing committee who was
involved in the scandal and on account of the said scandal, the
society was superceded and administrator was appointed. It is
further submitted that plaintiff had been involved the defendant
in litigations in order to cause loss and injury to the defendant
though she had no personal interest of any kind in any of the
litigation. Making any scandalous and vexatious allegations in
the rejoinder affidavit is also denied. Intention to defame the
plaintiff is also denied. It is objected that the plaintiff was out to
harass the defendant and to cause mental agony and financial
loss to the defendant. It is further objected that Sh. D. V.
Singh is not a party to the present proceedings and plaintiff
could not be allowed to make any allegation against Sh. D. V.
Singh. It is further objected that defendant never made any
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
allegations against the plaintiff who is member of Kalindi colony
or residents of Kalindi Colony or to the friends and relatives of
the plaintiff. Rest of the averments of the plaint have also been
denied by the defendant.
3 Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of
defendant wherein he has reiterated and affirmed the
averments of the plaint.
4 My ld. predecessor by order dated 16.03.2006 framed
following issues :
1 Whether the suit has been filed without any
cause of action as alleged in preliminary
objection no. 2 of WS? OPD
2 Whether the suit is barred by limitation as
alleged in preliminary objection no. 3 of WS?
OPD
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
damages as claimed for? OPP
4 Relief
5 In order to prove his case plaintiff examined himself
as PW 1 and was cross examined by ld. counsel for defendant.
Thereafter, plaintiff closed his evidence. In rebuttal, defendant
examined herself as DW 1 and was cross examined by ld.
counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant closed her
evidence.
6 I have gone through the entire records of the case,
including pleading of the parties, evidence led by the parties
and documents proved by both the parties. I have heard ld.
counsel for the plaintiff Sh. B. L. Chawla and ld. counsel for
the defendant Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal. My issue wise findings
are:
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
7 Issue no.1
Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action
as alleged in preliminary objection no. 2 of WS? OPD
Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
First, I read the plaint. Plaintiff stated in para11 of the plaint :
"11. that in order to disrepute and
defame the plaintiff amongst
members of the Swatantra Co
operative House Building Society
Ltd., residents of Kalindi Colony,
and his relations, friends and well
wishers, the defendant made false
allegations and imputations against
the plaintiff in the rejoinder affidavit
dated 24th November, 1999 filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, knowing fully well that the
said allegations were false and
untrue. The defendant made
scandalous and vexatious
allegations, unnecessary to the
subject, and misused and abused
the process of the Court, with a view
to reduce the plaintiff in the
estimation of others. The defendant
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
made scandalous allegations in para
no. 10 of the said rejoinder affidavit
that 'It is most respectfully submitted
that on account of the illegal
activities of Shri Taneja and his
associates to sell all the plots
reserved for shops clandestinely to
outsiders without offering the same
to the members who were not
allotted plots. There was no
resolution of the General Body to
that effect. He and his associates
realized a sum of Rupees Fifty Five
Lacs for sale of one such plot'. The
defendant further alleged in para no.
17 of the said affidavit that Shri
Taneja on account of his ulterior
motives to deprive the petitioner of
her legitimate right to erect and
construct the house has involved the
petitioner in litigation by filing cases
one after the other', and those
frivolous and scandalous allegations
were made against the plaintiff in his
individual capacity, although he was
defending the litigation as a member
of the said Society, and this was
done with a view to malign and
defame him in the residents of the
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
colony in particular and in the
society in general."
In para18, the plaintiff stated :
"18. That the cause of action firstly
arose for the present suit in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant,
when the aforesaid imputations were
made by the defendant in the rejoinder
affidavit filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, and
thereafter when her appeal was
th
dismissed on 27 July, 2000 and lastly
nd
it arose on 22 November, 2000 when
the defendant failed to comply with the
said notice and the same is still
continuing; hence the suit is being filed
within time."
Thus, the entire cause of action for filing of this suit
is stated by the plaintiff in para18 of the plaint. In reply to
para11, it is submitted by the defendant that the defendant at
no point of time ever informed the Members of the Society,
residents of Kalindi Colony, relations, friends and well wishers
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
of the plaintiff about the contents of the rejoinder affidavit.
There was no occasion for those people to know the contents
of the said rejoinder affidavit unless the same was made known
to them by the plaintiff himself. It is further submitted by the
defendant that there was no question of such allegations
coming to the knowledge of any other person except the court
in which the same was filed or the persons connected with that
matter. However, it is not denied that the plaintiff was the part
of the Managing committee who was involved in the scandal
and on account of the said scandal, the Society was
superceded and an Administrator was appointed.
The entire crux of the case revolves around
document Ex. P1 which is certified copy of rejoinder affidavit
filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Para10 of this
document states:
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
"10. That in the present matter Sh.
P.S. Taneja who has no authority is
illegally interfering in the matter. It is
most respectfully submitted that on
account of the illegal activities of Shri
Taneja and his associates to sell all
the plots reserved for shops
clandestinely to the outsiders without
offering the same to the members
who were not allotted plots. There
was no resolution of the General Body
to that effect. He and his associates
realised a sum of Rs. Fifty five lacs for
sale of one such plot. This caused
supersession of the managing
committee of the Society under
section 32 of Delhi Cooperative
Societies Registration Act. An
Administrator has been appointed by
the Registrar to manage the affairs of
the Society and to hold election. To
the best of the petitioner" knowledge
the Administrator has not authorised
Sh. P.S. Taneja to file the present
Affidavit."
Para 17 of this document further states :
"17. That Shri Taneja on account of
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
his ulterior motives to deprive the
petitioner of her legitimate right to
erect and construct the house has
involved the petitioner in litigant by
filing cases one after the other. After
having failed in two suits and one writ
petition mentioned below he wants to
get into the present matter by
representing himself as authorised
representative of the Society (which
he is not). Sh. Taneja cannot get any
relief by filing a suit or writ petition
(suits are barred under Order 9, Rule
9 CPC). Particulars of two suits and
one civil writ petition which were
dismissed are given in the paragraph
4."
Thus, the case of the plaintiff is that because of the
contents as mentioned in Ex. P1, the plaintiff has suffered loss
of reputation and defamation.
The plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW1/A. This affidavit is similar to the averments
made in the plaint. Plaintiff also proved Ex. P1 i.e. rejoinder
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
Ex. P2 which is notice dated 22.11.2000 issued by the plaintiff
to the defendant. During cross examination, this witness stated
that lay out plan of Kalindi Colony was sanctioned by the MCD
and lay out plan was for 98 residential plots, 7 shop plots and
primary school and two lawns but due to typographical mistake
in sanction letter of MCD, 108 residential plots were mentioned
instead of 98. He further stated that in the resolution no. 11
dated 1.10.1958, 108 residential plots were approved. He
further stated that the Society had authorized him to represent
the society in various cases and as such had given him a copy
of resolution dated 1.10.1958. He further stated that the
original land acquired by the Society was 20 acres. He further
stated that he became the member of the Society in 1971
approximately and the Society had acquired the land in Kalindi
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
Colony around 1955 or 1956 or may be in 1954. He further
stated that he purchased E22, Kalindi Colony in 1970 or 1971
and raised construction thereafter. He further stated that he
was dealing with the affairs of the Society since 1976 and was
elected as Member of the Managing Committee of the Society
in the year 1976. He further deposed that plots no. 40, 41 and
42 are existing today but are open land and these plots were
resold to the builders namely Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal, Sh. Vishv
Bandhu Aggarwal and Sh. Amit Aggarwal in 1986. He further
stated that dispute with regard to the said plots is pending
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi between the builders
and the Society. He further stated that plot no. E25 is in
possession of Horticulture Department of MCD. It is a
developed park and board of Horticulture Department is
installed there. He further stated that the litigation, as
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
mentioned by him in Ex. PW1/A, was filed by him, Sh. Ram
Bihari Gupta, Sh. I.J. Mehra and one Sh. Satnam Singh. The
said suit was withdrawn. Thereafter, he was directed to bring
the Sale Deed. However, he brought attested photocopy of
Sale Deed dated 7.10.1965 executed by Swatantra House
Building Society Ltd. in favour of Smt. Sushma Khosla. He
further stated that the original of this was deposited with
Punjab and Sind Bank, Sidharth Enclave, Ashram, New Delhi.
In the Sale Deed, there was mention of a plan but he did not
bring the plan mentioned in the Sale Deed. He gave
explanation that the same was not supplied to him along with
the Sale Deed. He further stated that he inspected the record
in the office of Registrar and found that no site plan was
attached with the Sale Deed. This copy of Sale Deed is Ex.
PW1/D1. He further stated that he was in the Managing
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
Committee of Swatantra House Building Society Ltd. but he did
not remember the post he was holding. He further stated that
an Administrator was appointed by the Registrar of Society in
1998 but he did not remember the name of the said
Administrator. He further stated that he did not remember the
date of filing of appeal against the order of Registrar of Society
for removing the Managing Committee of the Society. He
further stated that he did not remember the date of directions
given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He could not recall the
year in which the fresh elections were held or when the said
election was held prior or after the year 2000. He further stated
that the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was
filed in the year 1999. He further deposed that he had filed an
affidavit in the said SLP bearing no. 11906/99 on behalf of the
Society to which the defendant had filed the rejoinder affidavit
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
Ex. P1. He further deposed that he was Member of the
Society in the year 1996 and admitted that the Managing
Committee had invited tenders for the sale of three shops/plots
(commercial). The said plots were never offered to the
Members of the Society alone. He further deposed that the
tenders were received by the Society but he did not remember
whether any tender was accepted or not. A question was put to
him that the tender for plot no. 4 from Rally Estate Pvt. Ltd. was
accepted by the Society for Rs. 55 Lac for which he answered
that he did not remember the same. A question was again put
to him that the Managing Committee had no right to sell those
three plots/shops to any nonmember of the Society for which
he replied that it is incorrect but he further stated that the
powers are with the Managing Committee but he did not read
the powers of the Managing Committee. Another question was
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
put to this witness that under which Bye Laws the plot of the
Society can be sold to a nonmember and he replied that there
is not restriction in the Bye Laws of the Society from selling the
plot to a nonmember. A suggestion was put to this witness
that no resolution was passed by the General Body of the
Society for selling of shops to nonmember to which he denied
the suggestion and he voluntarily stated that the General Body
Meeting was held but he did not remember the date, month or
year of the said General Body Meeting. He further stated that
he read the resolution of the General Body Meeting but he did
not remember the date of the said resolution. he further stated
that agenda of the General Body Meeting was circulated
amongst the Members but he did not remember the points of
the agenda. He further stated that he did not remember the
mode of posting the said agenda. A suggestion was given to
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
this witness that no resolution was passed by the General Body
Meeting nor any agenda was ever circulated. A suggestion
was further given to this witness that plot no. E25 is an
approved plot and the same exists on the site as on date.
Those suggestions were denied and voluntarily stated by the
witness that it is a developed park. He further stated that the
possession of this plot was taken by the Horticulture
Department of MCD on 31.5.1979. He admitted that he had
filed a suit titled as Pritam Singh Taneja & Others Vs. MCD &
Others bearing suit no. 771/79 for not to sanction building plan
against plots no. 40, 41, 42 and E25. He further stated that in
the said suit apart from MCD, Sh. D.V. Singh, Ms. Poonam, Sh.
Suraj Bahadur Gupta and Others were the defendants. He has
further stated that the appeal was accepted and stay was
vacated and later on suit was dismissed in default. He has
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
further admitted that he filed a civil writ in the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi bearing CW no. 1859/94. He has admitted that
he moved an application in the matter titled as MCD Vs.
Poonam in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for being impleaded
as a party and the said application was dismissed. He has
further admitted that he read order dated 5.3.1998 passed by
the Registrar of Cooperative Society but he did not remember
the contents of the order and for this reason, he was unable to
tell that one of the grounds for appointment of Administrator
was attempt of the Managing Committee to sell the plots to
nonmembers.
Defendant entered into witness box as DW1 and
tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. D1.
This affidavit is on the lines of the averments made by her in
her written statement. In para7 of Ex. D1, she deposed that
Page 48
Civil Suit No.: 467/08
the Managing Committee of the Society of which plaintiff was
also a member, was superceded by the Registrar of Co
operative Societies in 1998 and one Sh. R.P. Sharma was
appointed as Administrator of the Society. The Managing
Committee remained superceded till the new elections were
held. The defendant had filed a SLP no. 11906/99 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and impleaded the society as a
respondent through the Administrator appointed by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The said SLP was dismissed on 27.7.2000. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in the SLP in 1999 purportedly under the authority of society. She further deposed that the plaintiff did not have any authority to file the said affidavit on behalf of society as the Managing Committee of the society was superceded at that time. She filed rejoinder affidavit Ex. P1 before the Hon'ble Supreme Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 Court of India. A new Managing Committee came into existence only somewhere after the year 2000 when the elections were held. She further deposed that counter affidavit was not published by her anywhere and she did not inform the contents of the said rejoinder affidavit to any person. During cross examination, this witness stated that she is residing in Kalindi Colony since 1977. She further stated that plot bearing no. B13, Kalindi Colony was allotted to her father way back in the year 196566 who was the original member of Swatantra Cooperative Housing Society. She further deposed that her father was an Advocate. During cross examination, this witness admitted that in January, 1999 the writ petition filed by the MCD before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was allowed and the order of ld. Administrator was set aside. She further deposed that against the said order of Hon'ble High Court, she Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 had filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where Swatantra Cooperative House Building Society was also impleaded as party. She herself stated that the said Society was impleaded through Administrator. She has admitted that the said SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in July, 2000 and she filed review petition which was also dismissed in the same year. She has further stated that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff signed all requisite affidavits and pleadings on behalf of the Society.
There is no cross examination on behalf of the plaintiff to this witness upon her evidence that the Swatantra Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. was impleaded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through the Administrator. There is no challenge by the plaintiff to this statement of the defendant. There is no challenge by the Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 plaintiff to the evidence of the defendant that the Managing Committee of the Society was superceded by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in 1998. There is no challenge on behalf of the plaintiff to the deposition that the plaintiff did not have any authority to file affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. There is no challenge to the deposition that the new Managing committee came into existence only somewhere after the year 2000 when the elections were held. There is no challenge to the deposition of the defendant that the counter affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was not published by her anywhere or she did not inform the contents of the rejoinder affidavit to any other person.
Before putting liability of defamation upon a person, I have to see whether statement made by the defendant in Ex.
Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 P1 is privileged or not. 'Privilege' means that a person stands in such relation to the facts of the case that he is justified in saying or writing what would be slanderous or libellious in a case. The general principle underlying the defence of privilege is the common convenience and welfare of society or the general interest of society. Privilege is of two kinds: (1) absolute and (2) qualified. A statement is absolutely privileged when no action lies for it even though it is false and defamatory, and made with express malice. On certain occasions the interests of society requires that a man should speak out of his mind fully and frankly without thought or fear of consequences, e.g. In Parliamentary proceedings or in the course of judicial or state proceedings. To such occasions, therefore, the law attaches an absolute privilege.
A statement is said to have a qualified privilege Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 when no action lies for it even though it is false and defamatory, unless the plaintiff proves express malice. These are(1) communications made (a) in the course of legal, social or moral duty, (b) for selfprotection, (c) for protection of common interest, (d) for public good; and (2) reports of Parliamentary and judicial proceedings, and proceedings at public meetings. In the law of Torts by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 25the edition which is by Justice G.P. Singh where at page no. 297, it is stated:
'No action of libel or slander lies whether against Judges, counsel, witnesses, or parties, for words written or spoken in the course of any proceedings, before any Court recognized by law, and this thought 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. The grounds of this rule is public policy or in other words, public interest in Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 administration of justice. It is applicable to all kinds of Courts of Justice:' Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Ram Jethmalani Vs Subramanian Swamy' reported as 123 (2006) DLT 535 where in para 67 held:
'The absolute privilege which applied to statements made in the course of judicial or quasijudicial proceedings and int he 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.' It is further observed in para 68 of this judgment :
'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 Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 utter irrelevant and scandalous things unrelated to the proceedings. It what is stated is necessary or relevant to the proceedings, immunity would be absolute.' In para 95 of this judgment, it is further observed :
'.......Rationale of absolute privilege being restricted to Court proceedings or proceedings before Tribunals which have all the trappings of a Civil Court and Parliamentary proceedings is that if threat of defamation suits loom large over the heads of lawyers, litigants, witnesses, judges and Parliamentarians it would prohibit them from speaking freely and public interest would suffer.' In para 10 of 'Govind Vs. Pandhrinath' AIR 1985 Bombay, it is observed:
'......If occasions were such that they required total protection, Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 absolute privilege would be available, but in other cases, depending upon the facts, the field would be covered by qualified privilege. In the former, notwithstanding malice, the action would not succeed, but in the latter, if malice is evident or established, damages would be decreed against the defendant.' In paras 13 & 14, it is further observed in the same judgment:
'13. Conceptually, privilege is a matter of defence permitted on the ground of public policy and public convenience so as to assure everyone that he would be free from responsibility for the publication of defamatory words, provided there exists an occasion for making the same. Absolute privilege is restricted to certain recognized occasions. It is not generally available. Even with regard to qualified privilege, occasion does play an important part. The law with regard to absolute privilege extending to Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 the enumeration of occasions is not covered by any straitjacket formula, but is ever in the process of evolution. By reason of the necessity to protect persons from actions in tort, juridically such occasions have been identified for affording protection. These are classified in several ways, but can be broadly stated to be one concerning judicial proceedings, quasijudicial proceedings, official communications by one officer of the State to another, proceedings of the legislative bodies, fair and accurate publication of reports of judicial and parliamentary proceedings, communications between persons concerned in judicial proceedings, like client and lawyer or client and solicitor. With regard to the extension of absolute privilege in these matters and upon these occasions, the underlying principle that attracts the privilege is the necessity on the Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 ground of public policy and convenience to keep free the flow of information and assure and safeguard freedom of expression.
14. The residuary field of privilege which has also the basis of public policy and public convenience is governed by qualified privilege. That too has clear relevance to the occasion and is not a mere matter of arbitrary whim or choice of the person making the allegations.
Occasions should be such where such qualified privilege is being claimed on the ground of public policy and convenience. Once the occasions are established, qualified privilege will extend to the statements which are per se defamatory and which are in fact untrue, but would be protected from the legal liability in torts.
(See Watson v. M'Ewan, 1905 AC 480; Beresford v. White, (1914) 30 TLR 591, Watt v.
Longsdon, (1930) 1 KB 130; and Lincoln v. Daniels, (1962) 1 QB Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08
237). Upon such occasions, the person is permitted to state what he believes to be true, provided the statements are made honestly without any indirect or improper motive. The rule in this regard is based on general welfare of the society and is only available on the ground of public policy, provided the honesty of the maker of the defamatory statement is not in doubt. No doubt, reports of crime upon successful investigation lead to initiation of judicial proceedings, but from that it cannot be said that in all matters, complaints lodged with the Police necessarily a step in an intended judicial proceeding. For it is equally possible that no judicial proceeding may ensue upon such a complaint to the policy, the same being false and imaginary. Such a complaint is to the nonjudicial authority and would rule out the extension of absolute privilege. The matter would fall in the arena of Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 qualified privilege ordinarily, unless cognizance is taken by the Court of such report.
However, in appropriate case, a question may arise when, after such a complaint, the same is lodged with the Court and did form part of judicial proceedings. In Para 8 of 'Ashok Kumar Vs Radha Kishan Vij and others' 23 (1983) DLT 27, it is observed that:
'In the law of defamation it is a defence that the statement was made on a privileged occasion. In certain circumstances it is excusable to publish matter which is defamatory. Such excuse is termed privilege. Privilege is of two kinds: (i) absolute (ii) qualified. If the occasion is one of absolute privilege, this is a complete bar to an action for defamation, however irresponsible or malicious the statement may be. A person defamed on an occasion of absolute privilege has no legal Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 redress, however outrageous the untrue statement which has been made about him and however malicious the motive of the maker of it. If, on the other hand, the occasion is one of qualified privilege, the privilege may be defeated by proof of malice. If the maker of the statement is actuated by malice he forfeits this protection of the shield of qualified privilege. The right of free speech is allowed wholly to prevail over the right of reputation in cases of absolute privilege. The right of freedom of speech prevails over the right of reputation, but only to a limited extent in cases of qualified privilege.' It is further observed in para 10 of this judgment that '.....Neither party, witness, counsel, nor judge can be sued civilly for words spoken or written in the course of any proceeding before any court of tribunal recognised by law, and this Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 though the words written 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.' In the light of these judgments, I am of the opinion that whatever stated by the defendant that was during the course of legal proceedings. Moreover, if I apply the principles laid down in judgments as referred herein above, defendant could not be sued for what she spoken or written during the course of judicial proceedings. Here, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was forfeited the protection of the Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 shield of qualified privilege. As already observed in above referred judgments that the right of freedom of speech is allowed wholly to prevail over the right of reputation in cases of absolute privilege. In this case, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has crossed the limit of qualified privilege as available to her during the course of judicial proceedings.
Moreover, there is implied admission of the plaintiff that Society was impleaded before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through Administrator. The Managing Committee was superceded by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in 1998, the plaintiff filed an affidavit in SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, new Managing Committee came into existence only somewhere after the year 2000 when the elections, rejoinder affidavit filed by her before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the defendant was not published by Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 her anywhere or she did not inform the contents of the said rejoinder affidavit to any other person. It is further admitted case of the parties that whatever statement made by the defendant against which the plaintiff has grievance, the said statement was made by her only in her rejoinder affidavit. No case is established by the plaintiff that the defendant has ever crossed the limit of qualified privilege as was available to her during the course of judicial proceedings.
In view of the observations made hereinabove, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the defendant and she successfully discharged the burden to prove this issue. 8 Issue no.2 Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged in preliminary objection no. 3 of WS? OPD This suit was filed on 28.11.2000. It is the case of Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 the plaintiff that he has suffered loss of reputation due to imputations published by the defendant in Ex. P1 which was filed by the defendant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 24.11.1999. To this preliminary objection, plaintiff did not give any specific reply in the replication filed by him before this court. Article 75 of Limitation Act states :
"75. For compensation for libel. One year When the libel is published".
Thus, as per Article 75 of Limitation Act, suit has to be filed within one year when libel was published. Admittedly, the rejoinder affidavit was published on 24.11.1999 as already stated by the plaintiff in para11 of the plaint. As per the provisions of Section 3 of Limitation Act : "3. Bar of limitation.(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
(2) For the purposes of this Act
(a) a suit is instituted
(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;"
Thus, admittedly the suit is filed after four days when the limitation to file the present suit was expired. In view of the provisions of Section 3 of Limitation Act suit is liable to be dismissed. Thus, the defendant is successfully discharged the burden to prove this issue. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff as suit is barred by limitation.
9 Issue no.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages as claimed for? OPP In view of the observations made during the disposal of Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 issues no.1 and 2, plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and also the present suit is barred by limitation. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of damages, as claimed.
10 Relief In view of the observations made herein above, the present suit is dismissed. There is no order of cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court today on 17.02.2010 (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi Page 48 Civil Suit No.: 467/08 CS No. : 467/08 17.02.2010 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment passed in this case, the present suit is dismissed. There is no order of cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completing necessary formalities.
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi 17.02.2010 Page 48