The main legal point established is that statements made in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, and civil liability for defamation should be determined based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of statutory rules.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - Two applications have been heard analogously as they are in the same suit. GA No. 507 of 2018 is an application at the behest of the defendant seeking dismissal of the suit. GA No. 33 of 2019 is an application of the plaintiff claiming that the defendant is guilty of perjury. The leaving was concluded on February 3, 2020. By the time the judgment was made ready the country went into lockdown due to COVID-19.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the cause of action of the present suit is barred by law. He has submitted that, the plaintiff in the plaint claims that, the defendant made a statement in an application seeking divorce from his wife which is allegedly defamatory. According to him even by taking the statements made in the plaint to be true and correct, the cause of action of the plaintiff is barred by law. Contents of a pleading in a judicial proceeding are protected by absolute privilege. A civil action for defamation does not lie in respect of a statement made in a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding. In support of his contentions, learned advocate appearing for the defendant has relied upon a passage from Gatley on Libel and Slander, Eighth edition. He has relied upon a full bench decision of the High Court reported in ( Satis Chandra Chakraborty v. Ram Dayal De, (1921) AIR Calcutta 1 ). He has also relied upon ( Kari Singh v. Emperor, 40 ILR(Cal) 433 ), (Brig. B.C. Rana (Retd.) v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors.,2012 SCCOnlineDelhi 5421 ) and ( Shri Anil Chaudhry v. Yakult Danone India Pvt. Ltd.,2018 SCCOnlineDelhi 11638 ).

3. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon a list of dates. He has submitted that, the plaintiff is married to the elder sister of the wife of the defendant. The marriage of the plaintiff took place on May 6, 2011. The younger sister of the wife of the plaintiff and the defendant became friends while working in HCL at Noida. On November 30, 2016, the defendant married the younger sister of the wife of the plaintiff at Allahabad. The defendant and his wife went to Ranchi and stayed there in a rented flat from December 2, 2016. The defendant and his wife left for Mumbai on December 8, 2016 and started staying in a rented flat. On January 11, 2017, the wife of the defendant left the defendant and came to Allahabad. On January 28, 2017, the wife of the defendant along with her mother went to Mumbai where they were informed that the defendant left the flat. The wife of the defendant and her mother returned to Allahabad. On February 4, 2017, the defendant filed a petition being O.S. No. 80 of 2017 under section 11 and 12 (1-b) read with section 12 (1-d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, Jharkhand praying for an order of decree of declaration of marriage between the defendant and his wife held on November 30, 2016 to be null and void. The plaintiff was made respondent No.5 in such divorce petition. On February 6, 2017, the wife of the defendant lodged a complaint with George Town police station, Allahabad against the defendant and a police case inter alia under sections 498A, 406, 313, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act was started. Such police case resulted in a charge-sheet against the defendant. The defendant challenged such charge-sheet before the High Court at Allahabad. Such challenge is pending. On February 9, 2017, the Family Court at Ranchi issued summons to the plaintiff for settlement of issues in the divorce petition. Such divorce petition contained the defamatory statements. The defendant filed a petition under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned magistrate at Karachi. Learned magistrate directed the police to register a case and investigate under sections 420, 328, 307, 377, 389, 496, 506 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A case was started against the plaintiff,