A suit for defamation must be filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, and failure to establish a cause of action can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.I filed by the defendant i.e., the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6055/2021 before the IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court", for short) whereby, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.I and consequently, rejected the plaint for want of cause of action and as barred by limitation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit for an unconditional apology from the defendant through media and for damages of Rs.1 Crore for publishing defamatory imputation.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a Member of the Indian National Congress Party as also a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Sarvagna Nagara, 160 Assembly Constituency. He was also a Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industry, IT and BT, Science and Technology and also Minister of Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka and he is a dignified and respectable person commanding great respect in the society.

5. It is further submitted that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri.P.Vasantha Kumar, Joint Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force, Bangalore ("BMTF" for short), the BMTF registered a case against the plaintiff in Crime No.62/2014 and on investigation by BMTF, a 'B' final report was filed in the said case and the same was accordingly closed on 30.05.2017.

6. It is also contended that the defendant, being a Former Corporator of Yediyur Ward in Bangalore City as well as the Former opposition leader in the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP", for brevity), has wantonly and falsely alleged that the plaintiff and Embassy Golf Link Tech- Park Management have encroached 13 acres of Government land. That the defendant has also filed a complaint with Lokayuktha and the Anti-Corruption Bureau seeking a detailed inquiry into the matter and also alleged that though the Government has allotted 52.03 acres of land to Embassy, the Embassy has fenced 65 acres of land, which worth about Rs.850 Crores, which land was actually reserved for the construction of houses for the poor. That the defendant has also alleged that though Embassy had to pay annual tax of nearly Rs.10 Crores or more for 4.5 lakhs sq.ft of land in possession, they were paying tax only Rs.1.24 Crores, thereby cheated the BBMP.

7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant not being satisfied with the aforesaid false and mischievous complaint, again on 16/01/2018, he has lodged another complaint to BMTF making similar allegations as made before the Lokayuktha and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, the BMTF issued a police notice dated 17/07/2019 to M/s. Golf Links Software Park Pvt. Ltd., with regard to the above subject, to which, a reply was submitted by the plaintiff and the same was ultimately closed based on the 'B' report filed in Crime No.62/2014.

8. It was further contended that again the defendant made false allegations against the plaintiff stating that he was involved in a scam pertaining to Indiranagar, BDA and Commercial Complex. The repeated false allegations made by the defendant ultimately reveal the deliberate intention of the defendant to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. Based on such controversial allegations, the news clips were published on 8th of December 2017, 11th of February 2018 and 19th July 2018, by Times of India and Deccan Chronicle respectively, which were uploaded to social media sites and the same were used and shared by a large number of people in the Society, which has ultimately resulted in a major derangement and has directly and indirectly affected not only the political career of the plaintiff, but also his personal and social life. Being