Delhi District Court
Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem on 14 October, 2022
Suit No.444/17
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:03:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:NEW
DELHI
Civil Suit No. 444/17
CNR No. DLSW01-004793-2017
In the matter of :
Mohd. Saleem
S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Gaffar
R/o 184/184A, Gali no.4,
A-Block, Phase-5, Prem Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mohd. Haleem
.......Defendant no. 1
2. Mohd. Anees @ Annu Bawa
Both S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Gaffar
R/o H.No.464, RCB 792,
Lokpriya Vihar, Khora Colony,
Near Sona Bakery, Pusta No.2,
Ghaziabad, UP.
........Defendant no. 2
Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 1
Suit No.444/17
Date of institution of the suit : 06.05.2017
Date of final arguments : 12.05.2022
Date of decision : 14.10.2022
SUIT FOR DAMAGES, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT :
1. Present suit has been filed for damages, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction on the ground of defamatory statements published by the defendants allegedly maligning the reputation of the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint are reproduced here as under:
(i) Defendant no.1 and 2 are the younger brothers of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property bearing no.1042 Haibatpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 43.
(ii) On 24.05.2001 and 27.05.2001, the father late Abdul Gaffar and mother Naseem Bano of plaintiff had published a public notice dated 27.05.2001 in a newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' to debar both defendants from their movable and immovable properties because of their misconduct. On 09.01.2009, Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 2 Suit No.444/17 defendant no.1 visited the residence of defendant no.2 when he was not present. Defendant no.1 had brought some written typed and blank papers and asked Naseem Bano to sign those papers.
Naseem Bano at first refused to sign the documents and on refusal to put her signatures, she was abused and pressurized to sign. Upon asking upon the nature of documents, she was threatened that in the event of failure to comply their command, her son Mohd. Saleem would be killed and his minor son kidnapped. Hence, she had to surrender before the threats and put signatures on the documents. Thereafter, defendant no.1 fled from there. Thereafter, Naseem Bano lodged a written complaint dated 09.02.2009 to SHO P.S. Najafgarh ans sent a legal notice through counsel addressed to defendant and Sub-Registrar, Kapashera, Delhi giving detailed sequence of events of incident dated 09.01.2009. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know that a civil case was filed by Naseem Bano against the plaintiff though Naseem Bano never filed nor consented to its filing and it further became clear that defendant no.1 had misused the documents which they got signed from Naseem Bano on 09.01.2009. Defendants no.1 and 2 also filed another false case for permanent injunction which was also dismissed. After filing the said suit, defendant no.1 started harassing the workers of the plaintiff working in the workshop by threatening them and sending them frivolous notices. They started sending false legal notices, making hoax calls to police and do every act to disturb the peaceful running of the plaintiff business from the said property. The plaintiff was forced to file civil suit against the defendants Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 3 Suit No.444/17 and the same was decreed. Earlier also, the defendants forced their father to file civil suit against the plaintiff and further instigate him to defame the plaintiff by doing certain acts due to which the plaintiff was forced to file civil suit which was decreed by ld. trial court. Later on, the father of the plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer and it was the plaintiff who took all possible care of him. After the death of father of the plaintiff, the defendants did not even turn up for his last rites.
(iii) After some time, defendant no.1 got issued a notice dated 10.07.2009 against the plaintiff from CAW Cell, Nanakpura through a woman named Razia claiming to be wife of defendant no.1 but she never pursued the complaint and the same was dismissed. The sons of plaintiff namely Arif and Amir received a false legal notice dated 18.11.2015 from one Sh. Tipu Sultan, Akbar and Sikandar claiming to be sons of defendant no.1.
(iv) When there were talks going on for marriage of the daughter of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 got issued a false legal notice dated 08.04.2017 for extortion of Rs.15,00,000/- against the plaintiff. The defendants also got distributed pamphlets containing false and libelous contents against the plaintiff for defaming him. When the plaintiff tried to talk with the defendants to pacify the matter, both the defendants threatened the plaintiff either to give Rs.15,00,000/- each to them otherwise they would get the sons and daughter of the plaintiff killed.
Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 4 Suit No.444/17(v) On 10.04.2017, after seeing the plaintiff in Tis Hazari Courts, defendant no.1 shouted on the plaintiff "main apne biwi bachon ko maar kar dabaa aya. Laash bhi nahi milegi unki tumhare sath bhi aisa hi karoonga". The plaintiff finally filed a complaint on 29.04.2017 before the concerned police station for protection of his life and limb and to safeguard his reputation but no action has been taken against these persons till date. Even after lodging the said complaint, the defendant no.1 pasted various posters on the wall of plaintiff's neighbours houses as well as near the work place of the plaintiff containing defamatory article against the plaintiff. The abovesaid comments and articles were also posted by defendant no.2 on Whatsapp group namely "Nisha or uske counsis" administered by cousin of the plaintiff and plaintiff alongwith defendant no.2 alongwith 9 more relatives are members of this group. Defendant no.2 also posted a note of defendant no.1 on the abovesaid whatsapp group on 01.05.2017 thereby threatening the mother of the plaintiff that the number of his sons will soon decrease.
(vi) It is further averred that the plaintiff has great respect in the society. He is running a famous tailoring shop in the name and style of 'New Light Tailors and Drapers' for the last about 26-27 years. The plaintiff is executive member of all the 22 Masjid in Najafgarh and nearby places in Delhi and used to organise and participate various social and religious functions on behalf of these Masjids. The plaintiff is Secretary of All India Zamiatul Mansur and has visited the holy place of Haz in 2013.
Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 5 Suit No.444/17(vii) Based on the above said facts, the plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- each from the defendants.
(viii) Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendant. However, defendants remained unserved on many dates and thereafter, on 11.10.2017, the defendants were proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the matter was put up for ex parte PE.
3. On 31.03.2022, PW Mohd. Saleem was examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
a. Ex. PW-1/B (mentioned as Mark A in my affidavit) (OSR) i.e. photocopy of title documents i.e.,
registered sale deed dated 12.06.2003 in favour of plaintiff in respect to property bearing no. 1042, Haibatpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43.
b. Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of registered settlement dated 09.03.2000.
c. Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of public notice dated 27.05.2001 published in a newspaper Punjab Kesari debarring the defendants.
d. Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) (colly) i.e. photocopy of notice dated 10.07.2009 against the plaintiff from CAW Cell, Nanakpura through a woman namely Razia claiming to be the wife of defendant no. 1.
Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 6 Suit No.444/17e. Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of death certificate of father of plaintiff. f. Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of legal notice
dated 18.11.2015 from One Sh. Tipu Sultan, Akbar and Sikender claiming to be sons of defendant no. 1.
g. Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) (colly) i.e. photocopy of pamphlets containing false and libelous contents against the plaintiff.
h. Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of google location at Tis Hazari Courts and photograph taken by plaintiff on 10.04.2017 when the defendant no. 1 threatened the plaintiff. i. Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of threat message which the plaintiff received via Whatsapp on a phone of his relative on 18.04.2017.
j. Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of complaint dated 29.04.2017 before the concerned police station. k. Mark D i.e. copy of documents i.e. Trade mark pertaining to plaintiff's shop M/s New Light Tailors and Draper.
l. Ex. PW-1/13 (OSR) i.e. Photocopy of I-Card of plaintiff being Secretary of All India Zamiatul Mansur. m. Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR) (colly) i.e. copy of Income Tax Return receipts.
n. Mark C i.e. photocopy of legal notice dated 08.04.2017 for extortion of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
4. PW ASI Subhash Chand was examined as PW-2. He Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 7 Suit No.444/17 had proved the complaint dated 29.04.2017 bearing DD No.23-B vide diary no.M-44/SHO/NG dated 29.04.2017 Ex.PW-2/1 (colly).
5. PW Sh. Dinesh Kumar was examined as PW-3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-3/A and relied upon photocopy of pamplets containing false and libelous contents against the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/6 (colly). In his affidavit, he has deposed that he is the family friend of the plaintiff and regular visitor to his house and shops and further witnessed some of the incidents happened with the plaintiff. He further deposed that on 23.04.2017, when he went for morning walk at around 4.30 am, he saw some poster Ex.PW-1/6 (colly) in Gali no.4 and 5, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 wherein it was written that plaintiff had played fraud upon his father's family and neighbours. He further deposed that on 18.07.2017 at about 05.00 pm when defendant Mohd. Haleem @ Balle was posting the posters Ex.PW-1/6 (colly) on the wall in Najafgarh, the plaintiff lodged the complaint by dialing 100 number and when the defendant was brought in P.S. BHD Nagar alongwith the plaintiff and himself, there also the defendant Mohd. Haleem started pasting the posters and threatened that he would paste the posters and nobody could dare to stop him. The defendant also threatened that he would not allow the marriage of the children of the plaintiff. However, the matter was pacified and the police did not take further action. He further deposed that the plaintiff is running one of the best tailor and draper shop in the market since Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 8 Suit No.444/17 long time and the plaintiff being Secretary of All India Zamiatul Mansoor has good reputation in the society and posters affixed by the defendant no.1 caused great damage to his reputation as per the feedback received by him from his friends and other people of the society known to him.
6. PW Mohd. Ezas Ahmed is examined as PW-4. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-4/A and relied upon photocopy of pamplets containing false and libelous contents against the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/6 (colly). In his affidavit, he has deposed that he is known to the plaintiff for more than 10 years as both are regular visitors at Masjid/Idgah, Najafgarh. He is Imam in Masjid opposite to the shop of the plaintiff situated in Haibatpura, Najafgarh. He has deposed that he had witnessed some of the incidents happened with the plaintiff. He further deposed that on 26.06.2017 i.e. Id day, he was going to offer Namaz at Idgah Surakhpur road and when he reached there, he saw that Mohd. Haleem was affixing poster on the walls of Idgah. He stopped him from doing so as it was the place of worship. He further deposed that Ex.PW-1/6 (colly) is the same poster which was being affixed on the walls of Idgah by Mohd. Haleem. He also deposed that there were about 500-600 persons at the Idgah and when he tried to stop Mohd. Haleem, he threatened him and ran away. He also deposed that even prior to this incident, Mohd Haleem had affixed different posters having defamatory remarks against the plaintiff on the wall of different mosques. He further deposed that the plaintiff is running one of Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 9 Suit No.444/17 the best tailor and draper shop in the market since long time and the plaintiff being Secretary of All India Zamiatul Mansoor has good reputation in the society and posters affixed by the defendant no.1 caused great damage to his reputation as per the feedback received by him from his friends and other people of the society known to him.
7. PW Narender Pal Singh was examined as PW-5. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-5/A and relied upon photocopy of pamplets containing false and libelous contents against the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/6 (colly). He also deposed on the same lines as PW-3.
8. PW Mohd. Ayub was examined as PW-6. He has deposed that plaintiff is his father in law. He further deposed that the defendant was torturing him before his marriage and sent him defamatory messages in respect of his father in law on his facebook account. He has proved the print outs of the said defamatory messages as Mark A (Colly) alongwith certificate u/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-6/1. He also deposed that the defendants tried to break the relations between the plaintiff and his family be defaming the plaintiff.
9. PW Manish, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, Bijwasan Branch, New Delhi was examined as PW-7. He has proved statement of account of New Light Tailors and Drapers bearing Account No.918020067826368 for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020. He also deposed that Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 10 Suit No.444/17 before 01.04.2018, there was no transaction in aforesaid account number. The attested copy of statement is Ex.PW-7/A (colly).
10. PW Aman Kumar, Assistant Manager, Axis Bank, Najafgarh Branch, New Delhi was examined as PW-8. He has proved statement of account of New Light Tailors and Drapers bearing Account No.360010200001809 for the period from 01.04.2017 to 23.03.2021. The attested copy of statement is Ex.PW-8/A (colly).
11. No cross examination was done as defendants were already proceeded ex parte. No other witness were examined and therefore, PE was closed vide separate statement of the plaintiff on 31.03.2022. Thereafter, final arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for clarifications / judgment.
12. I have heard the final arguments and perused the record. The only issue that arises is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages and permanent and mandatory injunction as against the defendants on account of the defendants having published defamatory statements maligning the reputation of the plaintiff.
13. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it would be of benefit to recapitulate the law of defamation. In Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Durdana Zamir 2009 SCC OnLine Del 477 : (2009) 109 DRJ 357 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 11 Suit No.444/17 held that "......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 property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The reputation spread by communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 12 Suit No.444/17 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."
14. In Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5421 : (2013) 198 DLT 35, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "......As a principle of equity, every man is entitled to have his reputation preserved intact. A man's reputation is his property and possibly more valuable than other properties, and any words calculated to cause harm to his reputation affords a good cause of action.
21. Odger says in his book on Defamation that "No man may disparage or destroy the reputation of another. Every man has a right to have his good name maintained unimpaired. Words which produce, in any Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 13 Suit No.444/17 given case, appreciable injury to the reputation of another are called defamatory, and defamatory words if false are actionable."
22. In Miller v. Thompson 1874 LR 9 CP 118, attempt is made to define defamation as exposing a person to contempt, ridicule, or public hatred or to prejudice him in the way of office, profession or trade.
23. Blackburn and George, in their Elements of Law of Torts, define defamation as a tort of publishing a statement which tends to bring a person into hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person.
24. Faulks Committee in England in 1875 defines Defamation as "Defamation shall consist of the publication to the third party of matter which in all circumstances would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally."
25. To claim that a particular statement is defamatory there should be publication to a third party and such publication should be of such a nature as is likely to cause appreciable injury to a person's reputation. Defamatory words, if false are actionable. False defamatory words, if written and published, constitute a libel, if spoken, a slander. In libel, the defamatory Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 14 Suit No.444/17 statement is made in some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as, printing, typing, pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander, the defamatory statement or representation is expressed by speech or its equivalents, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a nod, wink, smile, hissing, the finger-language of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.
26. In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of (1) refers to him; (2) is in writing, (3) is defamatory, and, (4) was published by the defendant to a third person or persons."
15. In light of the law as detailed in the aforesaid judgments, I find that the plaintiff has proved the following :-
(i) That the defendant no 1 has pasted a poster the contents of which are exhibited as Ex PW 1/6 (colly) on the walls of various buildings in the neighbourhood of Najafgarh that were witnessed by PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. PW-4 has specifically stated that he saw the defendant no 1 pasting the alleged defamatory poster on the wall of the Idgah. There is no reason to disbelieve the witness PW-4. PW-3 and PW-5 have deposed that they have seen the poster though they did not see the defendant no 1 in the act of pasting the same on the wall. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of PW-3 and PW-5 in Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 15 Suit No.444/17 this regard. Once the above facts are stated to be proved, then it is reasonable to assume the fact that the defendant no 1 had prepared the contents of Ex PW-1/6 (colly) and pasted the same at a public place. Therefore, I conclude that the defendant no 1 has published a statement in writing which was communicated to the public/third parties. Now it is to be seen whether such statement referred to the plaintiff and was defamatory qua the plaintiff.
(ii) I find that the plaintiff has proved that he is the proprietor of business concern with the name of "New Light Tailors and Drapers. This is for the reason that testimony of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged in this regard and also because of the documents which stand proved which are Ex PW 1/14 which is the Income Tax Statement for the Assessment Year of 2016-
2017 and bank account statement of the business concern which is Ex PW 8/A. The said fact is extremely relevant because of the statement in poster Ex PW 1/6 (colly) which has the heading of "New Light Tailor". The documents mentioned above show that the concern is having address in locality of Najafgarh. As deposed by the plaintiff witnesses as discussed above, the offending posters were found stuck on walls in the locality of Najafgarh. On a preponderance of probabilities, I find that it is reasonable to infer that it was well known to the public that the poster with "NEW LIGHT TAILOR" printed in capitals refers to the plaintiff. I find that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the offending poster which has been proved to be affixed by the defendant no 1 and communicated to public/third parties refers to Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 16 Suit No.444/17 him.
(iii) Now, lastly comes the question of whether the statement in the Ex PW 1/6 (colly) is defamatory of the plaintiff. The contents of the said poster which are written in Hindi when loosely translated amounts to the following "NEW LIGHT TAILOR of Najafgarh has defrauded his father and has suppressed the rights and liabilities owed to his father, brothers, his home, his relatives and nothing can affect him. Anyone in Najafgarh can tell the truth. Form any relationship including marriage of your children with him at your own risk. There are five shares in the property. He misguides etc. He searches for support in order to capture the property which is bound up in litigation, his papers are false, any buyer will be cheated." I find that this statement is clearly defamatory and maligns the reputation of the plaintiff. The statement clearly alleges that the plaintiff is an untrustworthy person who has cheated his family members. Such statement made to public at large clearly fall within the mischief of defamation, as it would have the tendency to influence adverse opinion of the plaintiff in the ordinary members of the society. The said statement demeans the plaintiff and has the tendency to incite opinion that the plaintiff is not a reliable person.
Therefore, I find that the plaintiff has proved that defendant no 1 has committed the tort of defamation against him.
(iv) Insofar, as the role of defendant no 2 is concerned, no evidence has come on record that he has done any act with respect to the publication of the poster as noted above. In absence Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 17 Suit No.444/17 of any such evidence that links him to the publication of the poster as above, he cannot be made liable for the same. Insofar as the evidence of facebook messages is concerned, I have perused the same, and find that there is nothing in them that would appear to refer to the plaintiff. Even if the plaintiff's allegations are admitted, that there is a threat to take the life of the plaintiff by the defendant no 2 in the said whatsapp and facebook messages, the same would not qualify as a defamatory statement.
16. Now comes the question of damages and whether the plaintiff would be entitled to damages and if so, the quantum. In Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy 2006 SCC OnLine Del 14 : (2006) 87 DRJ 603 : (2006) 126 DLT 535, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that "104. Unfortunately, in India, Law of Damages and in particular in relation to defamation has not developed at the same pace as it has developed in the European countries and the United States of America. Punitive damages in defamation are not awarded in India. Damages awarded are a recompense to the loss of honour and reputation. Inherently, quantification is a problem as honour and reputation are inherently incapable of being valued in terms of money. More often than not, loss of honour and reputation lowers the image of the person in the eyes of his friends and relatives and he suffers social isolation. If he is a professional, he may not suffer monetary loss as his Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 18 Suit No.444/17 clients would engage him for his professional skill and not his personal character. This appears to be the reason that the plaintiff, in relation to his earnings made no attempt to establish that after the offending words were written and spoken, his earnings suffered a dip.
105. A good name is worth more than good riches. (Shakespeare's Othello, Act-II, Scene III, pp. 167):--
Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord Is the immediate jewel of their souls;
Who steals my purse, steals trash;
Its something nothing;
T' was mine, t' is, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed."
17. Considering the fact that plaintiff has not pleaded that his business of tailoring and draperies has suffered any downturn since the publication of the poster by defendant no 1, he is not entitled to any special damages. Only the quantum of general damages is to be addressed. I find that definitely due to the poster and the allegations therein , which had the potential to affect the business as they attacked the character and trustworthiness of the plaintiff, this is not a case where only Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 19 Suit No.444/17 nominal damages can be imposed. The poster appears to have been maliciously affixed multiple times at a place/locality where the plaintiff would be known to the public as he is running a business of name of New Light Tailor and Draper in the said locality. The defendant no 1 chose not to appear before the court despite being served and therefore no apology was forthcoming or even sought to be tendered. In light of the same I find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs 2,50,000 from the defendant no 1 only. Suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no 2 fails.
18. The plaintiff has also prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendants from making such defamatory statements in the future. The plaintiff has also prayed for a mandatory injunction to remove the offending and defamatory messages on facebook.
19. With respect to the mandatory injunction the said plea is vague and overarching and framed in a broad manner without any URL to allow the Court to determine the location on the web of the offending messages. The said plea is therefore, refused.
20. With regards to the plea of permanent injunction, the defendant no 1 is hereby permanently injuncted from posting any poster couched in the language of Ex PW 1/6 (colly) at any public place which would have the effect of communicating the same to third parties.Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 20 Suit No.444/17
21. Relief: In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of damages of Rs.
2,50,000/- and permanent injunction as aforesaid qua defendant no 1. Suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no. 2 is dismissed. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by defendant no. 1 Mohd. Haleem.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by DIVYANG THAKUR DIVYANG Date:
THAKUR 2022.10.14
15:08:58
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur)
On 14.10.2022 ADJ-03/South West
Dwarka / New Delhi
Mohd. Saleem vs Mohd. Haleem & Ors. 21