In an election for the post of manager, defamatory statement were published against the opponents. In the present case the petitioner seeks damage to the tune of Rs 30 Lakhs for a statement which was published 8 years ago. A high court bench ruled in the favor of defendants, thus rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
On 16thMay 2020, in a suit for defamation and damages of 30 Lakhs with interest, Hon’ble Justice M. P. Singh’sBench of the East District, Karkardooma Courts, ruled in favour of the Defendants, thus rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff, Pushpa Yadav, and Defendant no. 3, Vedpal Singh, were rival candidates for the post Manager at Rashtriya Inter College, Ismailpur, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. Elections for the same post were to be held on 14th September 2003 and the eligibility criterion included being a graduate. In connection to this election, the Plaintiff alleged that the following events transpired, which resulted in loss of business and defamation for her:
PUSHPA YADAV
VS
STATE OF UTTARAKHANDAND ORS
- On 7th September 2003, defendant no.3 and his supporters wrote a letter to the Election Officer falsely claiming that the plaintiff had presented a BA 1st division degree of year 1981 from Meerut University whereas the plaintiff had infact done her BA degree from Garhwal University and had presented the same.
- Defendant no.3and his supporters got a false and defamatory publication made in a well circulated and widely read Hindi daily- Amar Ujala. Copies of this edition were circulated by defendant no.3 and were also sent to all relations and friends of the plaintiff in Delhi. While the newspaper published a denial, upon being appraised of the true facts by the plaintiff and her husband, it was too late and the plaintiff had already suffered damage to her reputation.
- When Garhwal University inadvertently issued degree of some other lady having similar name to the plaintiff, defendant no.3 took advantage of the situation and lodged a FIR at a police station in Bulandshahar. Later, the closing report was filed, when the University informed the SSP of Bulandshahar of the bonafide mistake.
- Defendant no.3 registered another FIR at police station in Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal due to which the plaintiff’s husband had to make 20-22 visits to the police station. On realizing that there was no progress in the case, the plaintiff approached High Court of Uttarakhand where the Hon’ble Chief Justice issued notice that plaintiff should not be arrested in connection with the case. Despite being informed of this order, on 4th April 2008, the police entered the plaintiff’s house and searched every room in the presence of maid servants and daughter, thus damaging her reputation.
- Upon the aforementioned incident being brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, criminal proceedings against the plaintiff was quashed. The challenge filed to the Supreme Court by defendant no.3 was also dismissed.
- On 26th May 2009, the plaintiff upon receiving an order from Garhwal University that her BA 3rdyear result had been declared null and void, challenged it before the High Court, afterwhich the order was withdrawn by the University.
The plaintiff alleged that these events involving all three defendants had tarnished her image and reputation. Everybody started to look down upon her due to which she finally decided to leave the country. Aggrieved by this, she claimed Rs. 30 Lakhs (rounded off for the sake of court fees) from the defendants, of which Rs. 25 lakhs is for the loss of business and defamation and Rs. 11,61,000 is the actual loss suffered in form of court fees, advocate fees, loss to business etc.
In response to these allegations, the counsel for the defendants argued that the suit is time barred since it is filed 8 years after publication of the defamatory news article in Amar Ujala; that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the alleged defamatory news had been published in the city section-‘Bulandshar News’ of Amar Ujala and that the suit failed to disclose any cause of action and therefore is an abuse of process of law. For these reasons, the defendants filed an application for dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issues Examined by the Court
In its examination of the case, the court inspected each incident of alleged defamation individually and gave reasons for rejecting the plaint.
[I] Publication of news article in Amar Ujala
The court dismissed the publication of the allegedly defamatory news article in Amar Ujala for the following reasons:
- The article was published on 9th September 2003 and the suit was filed in September 2011. However, in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, a suit for libel must be filed within one year of publication. Thus, the suit was hopelessly time barred.
- The defendants were not the authors of the defamatory matter and the person who actually published it was not joined in the suit. For these reasons, there could be no cause of action against the defendants and the suit was bad in terms of proviso to Order I Rule 9 of CPC.
- The defendants could not have been said to have made publication of an already published matter in a newspaper.
[II] Lodging of FIR at Bulandshahar
The Plaintiff’s case, for defamation caused due to registration of FIR against her at Bulandshahar police station by defendant no.3, was held not to be on proper basis because:
- Lodging of police complaint or FIR, even though false or defamatory, has the protection of absolute privilege and the same affords no basis to sue for defamation. In support of this view, the court cited multiple judgements including, Indu Dalmia & Ors. v. Rajasekhar Naidu Galla & Ors. (2020 SCC OnLine Del 204), Mahadev I. Todale v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. (2017 SCC OnLine Del 9135), Naresh Shridhar Mirajkarv. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1967 SC 1),Primero Skill & Training v. Selima Publications(2017 239 DLT CN15 15), etc.
- The police closure report came out on 10th May 2007 and the suit was filed in September 2011. Article 74 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act provides that a suit for malicious prosecution must be filed within 1 year from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is terminated. Thus, even though the plaintiff is not suing for the tort of malicious prosecution, yet if she did make such a claim, the suit would be highly time barred.
- Moreover, since the plaintiff was never detained, arrested or summoned to the police station, she hadn’t applied for bail before any court and the police hadn’t visited her house for any search or seizure, the court held that the mere lodging of a FIR cannot be considered as ‘prosecution’ under maliciously prosecution. The court further noted that it had not come across any case where the mere filing of FIR was held to be ‘prosecution’ under the Tort of Malicious Prosecution. In support of this, the court also cited T. Sahib v. N. Hasan Ghani Sahib & Ors. (AIR 1957 Mad 646)where it was held that action for malicious prosecution must be properly guarded to accord immunity to citizensfor bonafide efforts to bring antisocial members to the society to the bar of justice and Gaya Prasad Tewari v. Bhagat Singh(1908 36 IA 189) where it was observed that mere setting of the law in motion would not be sufficient for the tort of malicious prosecution.
- The court also held that the lodging of FIR at Bulandshahar was not ‘malicious’ as at the time the FIR was lodged, there was some basis to allege that the degree, which the plaintiff had with her, did not in fact pertain to her since the university had in fact issued degree of the same other lady having to the plaintiff.
- The court also found that it did not have territorial jurisdiction over the tort as neither was the FIR registered in Delhi andnordid any of the defendants reside in Delhi.
[III] Lodging of FIR at Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal and subsequent proceedings
The Plaintiff’s case, for defamation caused due to registration of FIR against her at Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal police station by defendant no. 3 and the subsequent events including the proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court and the police action of entering and searching her house, was held not to be on proper basis because:
- Lodging of police complaint or FIR, even though false or defamatory, and judicial proceedings have the protection of absolute privilege and the same affords no basis to sue for defamation.
- The proceedings came to an end when the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s petition on 4th May 2009 and the present suit was filed in September 2011. Article 74 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act provides that a suit for malicious prosecution must be filed within 1 year from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is terminated. Thus, even though the plaintiff is not suing for the tort of malicious prosecution, yet if she did make such a claim, the suit would be highly time barred.
- Claim against the police action was found to be time barred as the suit was filed more than three years later in September 2011.
- The court also found that it did not have territorial jurisdiction over the tort as neither was the FIR registered in Delhi and nor did any of the defendants reside in Delhi.
[IV] University order that plaintiff’s BA 3rd year result is null and void
Plaintiff’s action based on the University order holding her BA 3rd year result null and voidwas found not to be on proper basis for the following reasons:
- The order cannot be held to have defamed the plaintiff as neither was there any defamatory matter andnor was it published to anyone else. Moreover, the suit for defamation filed in September 2011, was hopelessly time barred.
- Since, the plaintiff was not prosecuted by this act of the university, it would not fall under the tort of malicious prosecution.
[V] Monetary loss to the plaintiff on account of advocate fees, litigation expenses and loss of business
The court held that the plaintiff could not recover the money spent by her in paying fees to advocates in Srinagar Court, Uttarakhand High Court and Supreme Court, litigation expenses and loss of business from the defendant for the reasons mentioned below:
- The plaintiff could not seek damages on the basis of a contract since she had no contractual relations with any of the defendants, such that they would indemnify her for the expenses borne by her.
- The plaintiff could not seek damages on the basis of a tort, since such an action for recovery of litigation fees would have been possible only under the tort of malicious prosecution, which for the aforementioned reasons is not on proper basis.
[VI] Business loss suffered by the plaintiff’s husband on account of litigations
It was held that the business loss of Rs. 2 lakhs suffered by the plaintiff’s husband because of the previous litigations was not recoverable as the plaintiff did not have any locus standi to sue for this, as long as her husband was alive.
Legal Provisions
Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Rejection of plaint. –
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: –
- where it does not disclose a cause of action;
- where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
- where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
- where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
- where it is not filed in duplicate;
- where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
Article 74, The Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963
| No. | Description of suit | Period of limitation | Time from which period begins to run |
| 74 | For compensation for a malicious prosecution. | One year. | When the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. |
Article 75, The Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963
| No. | Description of suit | Period of limitation | Time from which period begins to run |
| 75 | For compensation for libel. | One year. | When the libel is published. |
Article 113, The Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963
| No. | Description of suit | Period of limitation | Time from which period begins to run |
| 113 | Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule. | Three years. | When the right to sue accrues. |
Order Passed
In consideration of the aforementioned, the court found that the plaintiff had no cause of action for both defamation and malicious prosecution. Thus, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
For case specific advice civil matters related to defamation, appointment, elections, one may contact top/best expert Civil Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana.
This post is written by Soumya Nayyar. More on 99888-17966.
