Dr. S.P. Barua vs Shri Ashok Sharma on 1 October, 2012
27.Issue No. 6) Whether the defendant No. 2 has been wrongly
impleaded as a party in the suit? OPD
The contention of counsel for the defendant no. 2 in this regard is
that as per the definition of 'Editor' in Section 1(1) of the Act 'Editor'
means the person who controls the selection of the matter that is
published in a newspaper. There is no reference to Resident
Editor, Executive Editor, Managing Editor in the Act. The
defendant no. 2 at the relevant time was working as working editor
for Hindustan (Hindi) Newspaper. Neither the plaintiff has alleged
Suit No. 138/2010 Page No. 20 of 22
any allegations against the defendant no. 2 also the defendant
no.2 has relied on decision in C.B. Solanki, Major, Proprietor vs.
Srikanta ParasharÂ1997 (1) ALT Cri 912, 1997 CriLJ 3051, ILR
1997 KAR 1545 , to show that the defendant no. 2 cannot be said
to have defamed the plaintiff, the said case is based on the
criminal law of defamation and hence not applicable in the facts of
the present case. The plaintiff has made the defendant no. 2 as a
party as he was responsible for selecting and allowing the news
article Ex. PW1/5 to be published in the newspaper, clearly, the
defendant no. 2 is equally responsible for defaming the plaintiff in
the present case.