Back
PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Nripendra Nath Das – Appellant
Versus
Thomas Basumatari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:
1. The affidavit-of-service as filed today is taken on record.
2. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Order No. 26 dated August 7, 2024 as passed in Money Suit No. 3 of 2019 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri is impugned. By the said impugned order learned trial court has been pleased to reject the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The defendant felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.
3. In course of his argument Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the plaint of Money Suit No. 3 of 2019 as filed before the learned trial court. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that on perusal of the said plaint it would reveal that the defendant/petitioner herein made some allegations against the plaintiff to some dignitaries being a Minister of Union of India and a Member of Parliament and a copy of which was forwarded to the plaintiff.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that the contents of the said
A cause of action for defamation requires publication of the alleged defamatory statements; mere issuance of a letter without public circulation does not suffice.
A defamation suit must specify defamatory statements and their damaging nature; vague allegations do not establish a valid cause of action, warranting dismissal only if no triable issues arise.
Plaintiffs' suit for malicious prosecution was timely filed within the limitation period post-acquittal, establishing a clear cause of action despite defendant's claims of frivolity.
The court established that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 if it is barred by limitation, regardless of the merits of the case.
Point of Law : These infirmities go to root of the matter and the decision of trial Court rejecting the plaint insofar as defendants 1, 3 to 7 are concerned is not sustainable
The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be supported by clear reasoning, and failure to provide such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.
A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
