Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. These two appeals, by the plaintiffs, arise out of an action for damages for libel by the defendant.

2. The suit was partly decreed by the first Court, in favour of plaintiff 2 only, but when the matter was taken in appeal by the defendant, the plaintiffs also filed cross-objection, and the first appellate Court dismissed the cross-objection, but allowed the appeal of the defendant, and, dismissed the suit in toto. The plaintiffs, therefore have presented these two appeals, arising out of the appeal by the defendant and the cross-objection by them in the Court of appeal below.

3. Mr. A. C. Sinha, appearing for the plaintiffs appellants, raise the following points:

(1) That the plea of privilege was not open to the defendant, as this plea was nut specifically raised either in the written statement or in the issues:

(2) That, even if the question of privilege could be raised, it was not a case of absolute privilege, as rightly held by the trial Court, but wrongly held by the Court of appeal below;

(3) That, at best, it was a case of qualified privilege;

(4) That, if it was a case of qualified privilege then as malice had been proved by the plaintiffs