Delhi District Court
Sh. Chandra Kishor Yadav vs Sh. Tikulia Devi on 4 November, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 08, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. :- 207/2018
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SH. CHANDRA KISHOR YADAV
S/o Late Sh. Dev Narain Yadav
R/o RZH-70, Gali No.3,
Nihal Vihar, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
SH. TIKULIA DEVI
W/o Sh. Hans Raj Yadav
R/o Village Jharkaha, Ward No. 4,
Shankarpur, District Madhepura,
Bihar-852128. ....Defendant
SUIT FOR DAMAGE OF REPUTATION AND DEFAMATION OF ON
BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.
Date of institution of the Suit : 20.02.2018
Date of Judgment was reserved : 31.08.2022
Date of Judgment : 04.11.2022
Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 1 of 8
2
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.The present suit has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant seeking damages of reputation and defamation.
2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present suit are that plaintiff is stated to be a businessman running the business in the name and style of M/s C.K. Marble and residing at RZH-20, Gali No.3, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, New Delhi with his family members, one brother Sh. Lalo Yadav and mother. It is averred that the plaintiff have good social relations in his native Village Mora Baghel, PS Shankarpur, Madhepura, Bihar-852128 as well as at Delhi where his works of tiles, stones etc. and he is having deep roots in the society.
3. It is further averred that defendant and her husband, Sh. Hans Raj Yadav alongwith her associates had been misusing and abusing the process of law deliberately, intentionally with motive to extort money, defame him and lower down his prestige at his native place as well as at Delhi and they got registered a false FIR no. 77/2017, under Section 366/34 IPC on 15.06.2017 at Police Station Shankarpur, Madhepura, Bihar-852128 against him and his relatives alleging that her daughter namely Ms. Sikkim Raj was abducted by plaintiff for marriage.
4. It is further averred that he and his both brothers are already married and have children and the defendant and her associates succeeded in defaming them in society of Delhi as well as native village and due to this the plaintiff and his relatives have lost reputation in society, their good health, sound mind, Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 2 of 8 3 his business and more things. It is further averred that plaintiff have lost their business and income more than Rs.10 lacs which was calculated every year in terms of turnover of 28 lacs and also lost more than Rs. one lakh on his medical treatment. He further averred that he and his relatives visited at police station and other offices, places as police officials required not less than Rs.7 lacs.
5. It is further averred that the plaintiff and his relatives were arrested by concerned police which was published and it was informed to each person of plaintiff society and his relatives at his village and at Delhi so that they can suceed to extort money and the defendant and her associates made a force and influence on police as such the police officials visited his house regularly during the proceedings of the criminal case as a result of which he suffered from mental trauma and agony as he became alone in his society because all members of his village kept a distance from him and also his neighbours at Delhi used to ask questions towards his said criminal case registered against him by Bihar Police
6. He further averred that he and his family members were given clean chit by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar Madhepura, Bihar and he was released and even defendant's daughter / Ms.Sikkam Raj @ Sikkam's statement recorded before Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Madhepura, Bihar on 08.01.2018 wherein she stated that she got married with Sh. Sukh Ram Mehta with her consent without undue force and pressure.
7. It is further averred that defendant's husband was also responsible in destroying the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff as he always visited with Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 3 of 8 4 concerned police to his house without any rhyme and reason due to which every person still asking him that "why Bihar Police / persons visited his house and tried to arrested him and relatives: and he has no answer of their queries. It is further averred that his business colleague left contact with him when they came to know that the plaintiff, his brother and mother were arrested by Bihar Police and his goodwill was also destroyed because of his non-presence at Delhi for atleast five months from his business work.
8. It is further averred that that act of defendant is very cruel and against the peacful life of a reputed person and loss in his reputation, goodwill in market, prestige and loss of monetary, health decreased, mental trauma and agony and loss in business that cannot be calculated in any manner but it is not less than Rs.21 lacs and he sought such damages from defendant.
9. The summons were served upon the defendant and written statement was filed on 02.06.2018 wherein the preliminary objection has been taken that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction as FIR no.77/2017 was registered at Police Station Shankarpur, Madhepura, Bihar. It is further mentioned that final report of the police is yet to be accepted by the concerned Court and therefore, the suit is pre-mature. The avermnets of the plaint were also denied.
10. Replication was filed on 07.08.2018 wherein the plaintiff had denied the objection of the written statement.
11. The pleadings were complete on 04.05.2019 and vide order dated 11.02.2020, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as none has appeared on her behalf.
Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 4 of 8 512. Furthermore, on 04.05.2019, the following issues were framed :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.21 lacs on account of loss of reputation, mental pain and agony? OPP.
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest on said amount if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
3) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.
4) Relief.
13. In support of its case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who deposed the facts as stated in the plaint. Plaintiff also relied upon the documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 (colly) which is copy of final report no.6/2018 of FIR no.77/2018, PS Shankarpur, Madhepura, Ex.PW-1/2 which is copy of FIR no.77/2017, PS Shankarpur, Madhepura, Ex.PW-1/3 (colly) which is copy of Aadhar Card, PAN Card and GSTN number of plaintiff, Ex.PW-1/4 (colly) which is copy of registration certificate of GST in the name of Chander Kishore with trade name C.K.Marble Works and copy of ITR of Chander Kishore, Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) are medical record of Smt. Bhuleshwari Devi, Lalu and Chander Kishore, Ex.PW-1/6 is the copy of legal notice issued to defendant andEx.PW-1/7 is postal receipt. Plaintiff was not cross examined as defendant was ex-parte.
14. Plaintiff also examined his brother Sh. Lalu Yadav as PW-2. He has relied upon document Mark A. PW-2 was also not cross examined as defendant was ex-parte.Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 5 of 8 6
15. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
16. Ex-parte final arguments were heard.
17. My issuewise findings are as under :
18. ISSUE NO.3 Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.
This issue is taken up first as it is a legal question.
The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant, but no evidence was led by the defendant as she had stopped appearing since 11.02.2020 and was proceeded ex-parte. Since the question of territorial jurisdiction is a legal question and same can be decided on the basis of material on record.
19. Section 19 CPC permits a suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to the movable property to be instituted either within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court where the wrong was done or within the local limits of the Court where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. It is clear that territorial jurisdiction of a court in a suit for damages / compensation for wrong done to the person which in the present case is wrong done to the reputation of the plaintiff can be the place where the alleged wrong took place, or the defendant resides or carrying on any business for gain and profit and/or where cause of action arose. The suit can be filed and tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction either the defendants work or any part of the cause of action arose.
Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 6 of 8 720. Section 19 CPC makes it abundantly clear that any suit for compensation for wrong done to a person can be filed either within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction where the alleged defamatory material published or where defendant resides or carrying on business. In the event of publication of defamatory material, the wrong is done where the defamatory material is communicated and the moment the same is received by the persons, for whom it has been written. The publication of defamatory material against a person gives rise to a cause of action only when it is made known to the third party. The place of the third party and the place where it is known to a third party gains importance. The plaintiff may be living at any place. If publication of defamatory material against him is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is published and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. It is the choice of the plaintiff to file the suit either at the place where publication has been made or the place where the defendant resides.
21. In the present case, admittedly the FIR in question was registered at PS Shankarpur, Madhepura, Bihar and the defendant is also resident of Bihar as per the memo of parties. The plaintiff is claiming that since he works and resides in Delhi, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present suit. However, the applicability of Section 19 CPC is ignored by the plaintiff. No witness has been examined by the plaintiff who could have stated that the reputation of the plaintiff is lowered in the estimation of people known to him in Delhi.
Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 7 of 8 822. Hence, I am satisfied that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present suit as neither the FIR was registered within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the stated Final Report of the said FIR was also filed before the concerned Court at Madhepura, Bihar and no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
23. Since, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, the other issues are not considered for decision. Moreover, the plaintiff has not examined the Investigating Officer of the FIR in question or the person who has filed the Final Report. Another anomaly is noted in the documents relied upon by the plaintiff as the FIR is stated to be of the year 2017 vide FIR no. 77/2017, PS Shankarpur, Madhepura, wherein the Final Report mentions the FIR number as 77/2018 of the said Police Station. No explanation has been given by the plaintiff qua such anomaly. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
24. Decree sheet, if any, be prepared accordingly.
25. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 4th November, 2022. (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) ADJ-08 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Chandra Kishor Yadav Vs. Smt. Tikulia Devi Page 8 of 8