The defendant's failure to establish the truth of the defamatory words and the grant of a permanent injunction highlight the importance of verifying the truthfulness of defamatory statements before publication.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiff Appellant has preferred this Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21. 1. 1995 passed in O. S. No. 8/90 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of award of damages and permanent injunction.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff on the date of the suit was working as a Principal of the Government Junior Technical School in Hubli since 1986. It is his case that he comes from a respectable family and commands an unblemished reputation both as a Principal and also as a man and that his service record is clean. In public, his reputation is good and the plaintiff has been living up to his reputation which he values more than anything else. The plaintiff does not even know the defendants personally or otherwise. Some persons with vested interest and malafide intention to defame the plaintiff had been involved with defendant in publishing the articles. The second defendant is the editor, Printer and Publisher of a Kannada Fortnightly by name Tantrika Jwala". In the issue dated 16-31 October 1989 on Page 2 under the caption of TJTOFO ofcoaj^eajtorarttf ckd> zjojj5rt the second defendant got published a letter written by the first defendant to the second defendant. The said article alleges that the plaintiff as for his personal use got manufactured four steel racks in the workshop of the school during March and July 1989, with only steel purchased by him and that the labour, electricity and other apparatus were of the Government, and further imputes that a "tricycle" was manufactured in the month of July 1989 entirely at the cost of the Government for his daughter. The third allegation is that a teak-wood stool was got prepared and by paying only Rs. 7/- the said article was carried home by the plaintiff. The said article in question is published without any basis and it refers to the plaintiff as a looter and that the school will be destroyed at his hands, etc. In view of the aforesaid publication of the above article, the reputation of the plaintiff is lowered and stands damaged and tarnished in the public esteem and in the eyes of the superiors, colleagues and students.

( 3 ) ALL the three allegations mentioned above are totally false, baseless and imaginary and the publication of the same being obviously without verifying the truth and is opposed to the journalistic ethics. Subsequent to the publication, on 29. 11. 1989 the Director of technical Education, Prof. B. N. Krishnamurthy from Bangalore visited the institution. In the course of his visit he chose to reprimand the plaintiff, without any reasons, in the presence of the subordinates of the plaintiff which the director never did before. This is a direct sequel to the publication. Further it is said that the staff, students and the public at large had begun to see the plaintiff with suspicion and doesn't see respectful as before. Even the close friends and relatives of the plaintiff had begun to make discreet enquiries. It is said that alt this had put the plaintiff in a very awkward position and embarrassing situation. This had occurred due to the sequel to the publication. Therefore it is said that the plaintiff had suffered defamation, disrepute owning to the publication as a result of which he had suffered mental trauma, agony and tension and he had also spent sleepless nights.

( 4 ) THEREFORE the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his advocate demanding a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs jointly and severally from both the defendants giving 10 days time to comply with the demand made thereon. The legal notice sent to the defendant No. 1 was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement as "not known" and "not claimed". The defendant No. 2 who was duly served with the legal notice sent an evasive reply. In the reply instead of being apologetic or compensating the plaintiff the defendant No. 2 had asserted his action justifying the same and had also dared to initiate action agai