Delhi District Court
Smt. Sangeeta Jain vs Smt. Sita Sharma on 28 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMARI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE12,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 17516/16
Smt. Sangeeta Jain,
W/o Sh. Vinay Chand Jain,
R/o 1444, Gali Chhipian,
Bazar Maliwara, Delhi - 110006. .... Plaintiff.
Versus
Smt. Sita Sharma,
W/o Sh. Munna Lal,
R/o House No. 5910, Veenu Fall Wale,
Opp. Bissumal Dharamshala,
Gali Jattumal Missar, Jogiwara,
Nai Sarak, Delhi - 110006. .... Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AND FOR DECREE OF PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
Date of Institution : 21.10.2011
Date of reserving Judgment : 19.07.2018
Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2018
JUDGMENT
Vide this Judgment I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 1 of 9. recovery of damages and permanent injunction against the defendant.
2. It is worthwhile to mention here that initially there was three defendants but defendant No. 2 ASI and defendant No. 3 SHO PS Chandni Chowk were deleted from the array of parties as plaint qua them was rejected by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.2.2013. Hence, now there is only one defendant.
3. Brief facts as stated in the plaint are that the husband of defendant No. 1 is friend of plaintiff's husband. Some dispute were arose between the husband of plaintiff and husband of defendant and defendant No. 1 lodged a false complaint in PS Chandni Chowk in the year 2006 that her husband has illicit relationship with the plaintiff which resulted into the registration of Kalandara 107/151 Cr.PC vide DD No. 4B dated 13.4.2006. Later on, said complaint was withdrawn by the defendant No. 1 saying that she has not lodged the said complaint.
Further, the said allegations leveled by the defendant No. 1 used by the plaintiff's husband in a litigation between plaintiff and her husband with regard to petition under Section 125 Cr.PC.
It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 again filed a false complaint in PS Chandni Chowk in the year 2008 leveling similar false allegations vide DD No. 28A dated 29.3.2008 under Section 107/50 Cr.PC which resulted into registration of Kalandara. In the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in the said Kalandara, the defendant No. 1 has made false, frivolous and vexatious allegations Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 2 of 9. on character of plaintiff and leveled that the plaintiff has been maintaining illicit relationship with her husband. However, the said Kalandara was disposed off by SEM in June, 2009 and plaintiff was discharged.
The defendant No. 1 did not stop there and constantly making false propaganda in the locality and neighbourhood of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff is maintaining illicit relations with the husband of defendant No. 1 due to which plaintiff is facing taunting remarks from the neighbours, local people and other known persons. It is further stated that her husband lodged false complaint against her taking advantage of the allegations leveled by defendant No. 1. Hence, the defendant No. 1 is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/. It is further stated that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are ASI and SHO of PS Chandni Chowk deliberately acted upon the false complaints of the defendant No. 1 without proper inquiry and investigation and hence, they are also liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ towards her defamation, harassment, mental agony etc.
4. Summons of the suit were issued to all the defendants. Despite being served, the defendant No. 1 did not filed written statement. Hence, defendant No. 1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.2.2013.
5. The defendant No. 3 only filed written statement in which he denied the contents for want of knowledge except the registration of Kalandara dated 13.4.2016 and Kalandara dated 29.3.2008 and the proceedings qua said Kalandaras. However, it Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 3 of 9. is denied that the defendant No. 3 has made any allegations and imputations against the plaintiff in connivance with the defendant No. 1 or her husband.
He has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint qua him which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor and the plaint against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was rejected vide order dated 13.2.2013.
6. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 who led her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has deposed same contents in her affidavit, Ex. PW1/A which was stated by her in the plaint. Hence, same are not repeated here. Further, she has proved the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/12.
Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 12.9.2017. Thereafter, the matter was listed for exparte final arguments.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the case file.
8. The onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that she is entitled to recover the damages even if the defendant is exparte. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and led her evidence through affidavit, Ex. PW1/A in which she has almost deposed the same facts as stated by her in plaint. Therefore, the same are not repeated here. She has also proved the documents which are as follows :
1. Photocopy of proceeding of Kalandara dated 13.4.2006 as Ex. Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 4 of 9.
PW1/1.
2. Copy of letter to the police commissioner by defendant Smt. Sita Sharma as Ex. PW1/2.
3. Copy of the affidavit of Smt. Sita Sharma dated 8.12.2007 as Ex. PW1/3.
4. Copy of Kalandara dated 29.3.2008 under Section 107/150 Cr.PC as Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy to the SHO, PS Chandni Chowk by Smt. Sita Sharma as Ex. PW1/5.
6. Copy of the DD entry No. 26A dated 29.3.2008 as Ex. PW1/6.
7. Copy of the legal notice to the commissioner of police dated 19.7.2008 as Ex. PW1/7.
8. Copy of the legal notice to Smt. Sita Sharma dated 10.7.2008 as Ex. PW1/8.
9. Copy of statement of the witnesses before SEM as Ex. PW1/9 (Colly.).
10. Photocopy of complaint to the SHO by Smt. Sita Sharma dated 8.10.2011 as Ex. PW1/10 (Colly.).
11. Photocopy of order dated 16.9.2011 passed in CS No. 20/2011 as Ex. PW1/11.
Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 5 of 9.
12. Photocopy of the plaint titled as Shri Jain Swetamna Temples, Paushal & Charitable Trust Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Jain & Ors. as Ex. PW1/12.
9. Since the defendant is exparte therefore, testimony of plaintiff has remained unrebutted. However, it is settled law that even if defendant is exparte, the plaintiff has to prove his / her own case.
10. It is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that from the testimony of plaintiff, it is proved that defendant has defamed the plaintiff by leveling false allegations of illicit relationship of plaintiff with her husband. Therefore, plaintiff has proved her case hence, a decree of Rs. 7,50,000/ be passed against the defendant.
11. Before deciding whether the defendant has defamed the plaintiff or not, it would be appropriate to discuss what is defamation. The defamation has only been defined in Section 499 IPC which is reproduced as under : "Defamation.Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 6 of 9.
Explanation 2.It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful".
12. From the testimony of the plaintiff, it is evident that she has alleged that since defendant No. 1 has stated in the Kalandara dated 13.4.2006, Ex. PW1/1 and Kalandara dated 29.3.2008, Ex. PW1/4 that she has illicit relations with the husband of defendant No. 1 due to which her reputation has been damaged and thus, defendant No. 1 is liable to compensate for defamation but on perusal of Kalandara, Ex. PW1/1.
13. On perusal of Kalandara Ex. PW1/1 and on perusal of Kalandara dated 29.3.2008, Ex. PW1/4, I did not find any allegation of illicit relation levelled by defendant against the plaintiff. However, the said Kalandara has been recorded by SI Jai Singh in which he has stated that he reached at the spot on receipt of call on quarrel and he Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 7 of 9. recorded statement of Smt. Sita Sharam (defendant No. 1) who stated to him that her husband Munna Lal Sharma used to visit the house of Smt. Sangeeta Jain and there is illicit relation (galat sambandh) between her husband and Smt. Sangeeta Jain and whenever she used to stop her husband from going to house of Smt. Sangeeta Jain, Smt. Sangeeta Jain used to come to her house and quarrel with her. Statement of Smt. Sita Sharma is proved as Ex. PW1/5 which also contain the facts as mentioned in Kalandara Ex. PW1/4. Ex. PW1/6 is copy of daily diary register DD No. 28A dated 29.3.2008 got recorded by SI Jai Singh.
14. Hence, from perusal of Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 it is proved that defendant has leveled allegations against the plaintiff that she has illicit relation with her husband. The leveling of such kind of allegation are defamatory against the plaintiff which will certainly lowered her esteem. The onus was upon the defendant to prove that her allegations were true as truth is one of the defence against offence of defamation but she did not contest the case hence, I held that the defendant has committed defamation against the plaintiff.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that there are two kinds of defamation, one is libel where defamation committed through publication and other is slander where defamation is committed through spoken words. The period of limitation to file suit for compensation for Libel and Slander is given in Entry Nos. 75 and 76 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. As per the Entry No. 75 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, the Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 8 of 9. period of limitation of filing a suit for libel is one year and similarly as per Entry No. 76, period of limitation for filing a suit for slander is also one year. The present suit is filed on 21.10.2011 though admittedly, the defamation against the plaintiff was done on 13.4.2006 and 29.3.2008 i.e. when defendant's statement was recorded by the police leveling allegations of illicit relation of plaintiff with her husband for which Kalandara Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/14 have registered respectively. Hence, the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation. Even as contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that period of limitation starts from the date of order of the SEM passed in Kalandara i.e. in June 2009 when he dropped the proceedings, even then the suit is filed beyond the period of one year as same has been filed on 21.10.2011. Therefore, the present suit is barred by limitation.
16. RELIEF.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I held that since suit is barred by limitation therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR Announced in the open KUMAR Date: 2018.09.28 14:49:07 +0000 Court on 28.09.2018 ( Sanjeev KumarI) Additional District Judge12,(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 28.09.2018.
Suit No. 17516/16 Sangeeta Jain Vs. Sita Sharma & Ors. Page No. 9 of 9.