A cause of action for defamation requires publication of the alleged defamatory statements; mere issuance of a letter without public circulation does not suffice.

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 letter bear some allegations against the plaintiff but by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as libel. It is further argued by Mr. Ghosh that within the four corners of the plaint no averment has been made by the plaintiff that the alleged libel as alleged to have been made has been made public which have a tendency to lower down the prestige and reputation of the plaintiff.

5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the defendant/petitioner at this stage draws attention of this Court to the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that since within the four corners of the plaint there is no averment that any publication of any scandalas statement allegedly made by the defendant against the plaintiff has been made, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that a cause of action at all arises for filing a suit for defamation.

6. Mr. Ghosh in course of his argument requests this Court to peruse Paragraph 17 of the plaint wherein the statement regarding arising of cause of action has been disclosed. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that mere issuance of a letter by the defendant to some dignitaries does not constitute a cause of action in a suit for defamation. It is thus submitted that the defendant/petitioner is thus very much justified in filing the petition for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial court and the learned trial court ought not to have rejected the same by passing the impugned order.

7. In course of his argument Mr. Ghosh places his reliance upon a reported decision namely, S.T.S. Raghavendra Chary vs. Cheguri Venkat Laxman Reddy reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 2115.

8. This Court has meticulously perused the copy of the plaint of Money Suit No. 3 of 2019, the copy of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the impugned order as passed by the learned trial court. This Court has also gone through the reported judgment of S.T.S. Raghavendra Chary (supra) as cited from the side of the defendant/petitioner.

9. For effective adjudication of the instant revisional application the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be looked into and the same is quoted hereunder in verbatim:

“11. Rejection of plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp