Defamation claims require clear evidence linking the defendant to the published statements, and failures to prove such connections result in dismissal.

Judgment :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This is the plaintiff’s first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned 8^th Additional District Judge , Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 189-B/2007 whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the suit for loss of damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-

2. The parties are referred to as described in the civil suit before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint’s averments are that:-

3.A)The plaintiff filed the civil suit mainly contending that his father was a contractor at the Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) since 1965 under the name and style of the firm M/s G.B. Patel. He enjoyed an excellent reputation among BSP officials and within the business community for the quality and diligence with which he executed contractual work. He also took active interest in social service and contributed personally and financially wherever required. His family similarly enjoyed high standing within the Gujarati community as well as in the social and business circles of the city. He was a peace-loving and kind-hearted person.

3.B)It is stated that the plaintiff assisted his father in the BSP contractual work during his lifetime and, after his father’s death in 1998, completed all pending contractual obligations in an respectable manner. Subsequent to his father’s demise, the contracting firm came to be transferred in the name of his mother, who continues to execute BSP contracts under her own name, though the plaintiff manages the firm on her behalf. The firm has an annual turnover of approximately Rs. 1½ - 2 crores.

3.C)The plaintiff resides at Malviya Nagar, a prominent colony of Durg city, where several well-known industrialists, businessmen, contractors, professionals, and social workers reside. The plaintiff and his family members maintain cordial and respectable relations with all such dignitaries.

3.D)It has been further contended that the defendant, who is also a contractor at Bhilai Steel Plant, has long harboured jealousy towards the plaintiff due to business competition and has been attempting to harm him, therefore, the defendant maliciously lodged a false report at Police Station Bhatti-Bhilai on 03.04.2003, although the case was not registered. The next day, on 04.04.2003, the defendant submitted a written complaint against him and his employees Venus Saima and Dharmendra Yadav to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, levelling false, fabricated and defamatory allegations against them alleging that they had given threats to life, they have made extortion demands, and interfered in tender process. A case was registered under Section 507 IPC based on the said complaint. Copies of this defamatory complaint were circulated to several high authorities, including the Collector, Inspector General, Director General of Police, the Home Minister, the Chief Minister and the Union Deputy Prime Minister. A copy was also sent to BSP management. It is stated that these allegations tarnished the plaintiff’s image before senior police officers, district administration, State Government authorities, Ministers, and other dignitaries with whom the plaintiff had regular contact due to his social, religious, political, and press-related work. Sending copies to BSP officers further damaged his reputation within the Plant establishment. It is next stated that, without awaiting the results of the police inquiry, the defendant, out of malice and jealousy, deliberately published false and defamatory news in local daily newspapers on 05.04.2003, resulting in