SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Del) 877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: S. Muralidhar, J.
Dr. K.A. Paul – Appellants
Vs.
K. Natwar Singh and Ors. – Respondent
CS(OS) 1161/2007 and IAs 8848, 10647 and 13220/2007
Decided On: 12.08.2009

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Surat Singh, Pratibha Chopra and Sudhanshu Palo, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Adv., Samrat K. Nigam and Sanjeev Mahajan, Advs. for D-1, D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. for D-2 and A.S. Chandhiok, Addl. Solicitor General, Sweta Kakkad and Varun Pathak, Advs. for D-3

The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to limitation periods, proper joinder of parties and causes of action, and the mandatory nature of prior notice for public office holders under Section 80(1) CPC.

Headnote:

Defamation - Civil Suit - Limitation Act, 1963 - Order II Rule 3 CPC - Section 80(1) CPC

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants for defaming him and causing financial loss. The Defendants filed applications seeking dismissal of the plaint and discharge of summons.

Finding of the Court:

The suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within one year of the defamatory statement. The suit was also bad for mis-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of causes of action. Prior notice under Section 80(1) CPC was mandatory for public office holders.

Issues: Limitation for filing suit, mis-joinder of parties, mis-joinder of causes of action, mandatory prior notice for public office holders.

Ratio Decidendi: The suit was barred by limitation, mis-joined parties and causes of action, and lacked mandatory prior notice for public office holders.

Final Decision: The applications of the Defendants were allowed, and the suit was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

IA Nos. 10647/2007, 13220/2007 & 8848/2007

1. These applications in Civil Suit, CS(OS) No. 1161 of 2007 are by the Defendants. Defendants 1 and 3 have filed IA Nos. 10647 of 2007 and 13220 of 2007 respectively under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Defendant No. 2 has filed IA No. 8848 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The prayer in the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is for dismissal of the plaint. The prayer in the application IA 8848 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is for discharging the summons issued to Defendant No. 2.

2. The prayer in the suit is for the issuance of summons to the Defendants for defaming the Plaintiff and awarding exemplary compensation of not less than Rs. 1 crore for the loss of reputation caused to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s charitable organizations.

3. According to the Plaintiff, he is a global peacemaker. In May 2005 he organised a global peace summit espoused the cause of India to be a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. He claims that he launched a Global Peace Initiative and arranged to go on a global peace tour to five countries along with the former Prime Minister Mr. Deve Gowda. According to the Plaintiff, arrangements were made for the tour using the Plaintiff’s own private aircraft. It is stated that on 3rd July 2005, Defendant No. 1, Mr. K. Natwar Singh who was then the Union Minister of External Affairs, telephoned the former Prime Minister and made the following defamatory remarks about the Plaintiff thus lowering the Plaintiff’s prestige and esteem in the eyes of not only the former Prime Minister but the leaders of five other countries:

What an honourable person like you is doing with this evangelist who in

the name of Global Peace Mission is using you for his own interest.

Please do not dishonour yourself by associating yourself with him.

4. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 again called the former Prime Minister on 4th July 2005 advising him not to associate himself with the peace mission and repeated his low opinion of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that the defamatory remarks not only caused a loss of reputation to him in the leaders of the five countries but also a financial loss.

5. In para 8 of the Plaintiff it is stated that the peace mission of five countries was to take place between 5th and 15th July 2005.Those leaders of the countries thereafter did not show any willingness to meet the Plaintiff when he visited their countries later. He came to know that that this was on account of the intervention by the External Affairs Ministry which made calls to the leaders of the five countries on 3rd and 4th July 2005 persuading them not to entertain the peace delegation. The alleged monetary loss suffered by the Plaintiff and his organization as a result of the above calls are set out in para 9 of the plaint.

6. The Plaintiff then states that he had planned the inaugural of a center named – Gandhi – Martin King – Paul Center in Hyderabad on 26th and 27th May 2007. This was to be dedicated to the promotion of peace and non- violence. An invitation was sent to Mr. Y. Rajasekhara Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Defendant No. 2. It is stated that a copy of the invitation was also sent to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. According to the Plaintiff, when these facts came to the notice of the Defendant No. 3 Mr. Pranab Mukharjee he is supposed to have called Defendant No. 2 and reprimanded him thus:

How come you are inviting President of a country without prior permission of foreign country? Are you doing the job of a Chief Minister or Prime Minister? And who is this joker Dr. Paul who is inviting President of this country and that country? Disassociate yourself from Dr. Paul if you want to have good relationship with the top leadership. Remember George Bush is our friend and this joker is against Bush. Stop all your support to this fellow. I am advising you in your own int



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top