( 1 ) ON June 7, 1987, the Jansatta, a daily newspaper published a news item in Hindi. The plaintiff has provided its translation which reads as under: "the PRIEST KILLS PREM" (By Jansatta Correspondent ). New Delhi, 1st June. The Priest Baba Mangal Nath of Ram Johri Mandir in village Palam is absconding after murdering Prem Sarup. He killed him with the help of his vagabonds and anti-social persons. The body was thrown in the drain. Shri Parkash Chander General Secretary YUVAK VIKAS KENDRA has levelled the charges. He has charged the Baba/jogi that he was selling Smack and other drugs in the Temple and he was accused of several offences. Shri Chandra stated that Baba Mangal Nath through his disciple Bhartu, Namberdar summoned Prem Sarup @ Premi to his house. When he reached the temple the Baba told him that whosoever did not obey him faces the consequences. The allegations are that the Baba and his stooges thereafter gave severe beatings to the said Premi with sticks and from rods and thereafter threw him in the drain. They stated that the report is lodged with Police Post Palam. The Police arrested the Baba and co-accused and bailed them out. Both of them are absconding. " The grievance of the plaintiff is that said news item was false, malicious and defamatory and that it has lowered him in the estimation of others. He has thus claimed Rs. 2,00,000. 00 as damages from the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and the Chief Editor of Jansatta.

( 2 ) NEEDLESS to say, the defendants have contested the suit. As per them, neither the news item was false nor defamatory but was true and published after proper verification. The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 2. Whether the article published in jansatta dated 7. 6. 1987 has resulted in defamation of the plaintiff? OPP 3. If issue No. 2 is held in favour of the plaintiff whether the defendants are liable to pay damages and compensation and if so, to what amount? 4. Relief. "

( 3 ) I need not detain myself on Issue No. 1. Not a word in support was said and rather it was conceded that the plaintiff had the locus standi to institute the suit. I need say no more.

( 4 ) WHILE the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff comprised of hardly ten sentences including an introductory note, the learned counsel for the defendant was even more brief. The case was put as under: For Plaintiff: The news item had lowered the plaintiffin the estimation of himself and others, it being defamatory, malicious and false. (If what has been reproduced above falls short of ten sentences, it is only because the introductory part has been left out.) For defendant: The plaintiff has proved nothing. The suit merits dismissal.

( 5 ) I have been left to till and toil.

( 6 ) WHAT is defamation? The classic definition is that of Parke B in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) 6 M and W 105 at 108, where he said:

"a publication. . . which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. "however, this definition has not been considered to be sufficient. In Tournier v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England (1924) 1 KB 461 Scrutton LJ said:

"i do not myself think this ancient formula is sufficient in all cases, for words may damage the reputation of a man as a business man, which no one would connect with hatred ridicule or contempt. "lord Atkin too, not only in Tornier s case (supra) but in Sim v. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237, also expressed the view that the definition of Parke B seemed to be too narrow. The Faulks Committee in their report have recommended that for purposes of civil cases the following definition of defamation may be adopted:

"defamation shall consist of publication to a third party of matter which in all the circumstances would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally. "i confess, I feel m