The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the discretion of the Court to allow the defendant to file a written statement even after the expiry of the prescribed period.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Vijay Kumar Mangla filed a suit against M/s. J.M. Overseas and two other concerns for recovery of Rs.6 lacs on account of defamation. It was alleged by the defendants that the plaitniff was involved in import-export business and amongst others was also carrying on the business through M/s. Mangla Overseas, 434, Katra Medgran, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The plaintiff (respondent in the present appeal) stated that he has been carrying on the business for a number of years and enjoyed good reputation in the market and the society. The appellants no.1 to 4 (defendants in the suit) in the present appeal have also been carrying on the business for a number of years which are proprietorship concerns and they, amongst themselves, hatched a conspiracy with the intention to harm his good fame and reputation and with the intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to him. They made slanderous allegations stating that he was dishonest. It was also stated by them that the respondent while dealing with the firm M/s. Shyam Sunder Krishan Kumar had committed illegalities in the business dealings. Not only this, the appellants also lodged a false complaint to defame him in the business community, used defamatory language inter alias making the following averments thus causing mental torture to the plaintiff :

SALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAIN PATA KARNE PER MALOOM CHALA KEE YEH FIRM REGISTERED NAHI HAI. IS PARKAR INHONE JAAN BUJ KAR DHOKHADHDI KARNE KE IRADE SE YEH KAAM KIYA TAKI BAZAR KA PAISA LF KE AARAM SE BAAG SAKE ISKE PASCHAT SHYAM LAL PICHOTIYA SE MALOOM I AGA KI HIM TO SIRAF DUS HAZAR MAHAVAAR PER KAAM KARTE THAI ISKA ASLI MAI TK TO VIJAY KUMAR MANGLA (MANGLA OVERSEAS) PROPERTY NO. 434-435, KATRA MAIDGRAN MAIN STITH HAI TATHA KOTHI NO. B-199 DERAWAL NAGAR MAIN HAI.

2. It was stated by the plaintiff that the complaint was false and nothing was proved. It was also stated that due to the false criminal complaints filed by the said defendants, the police authorities also visited the house of the plaintiff at odd hours and even the police in uniform visited their place of business. A false FIR was lodged by the defendants being FIR No. 314 dated 18.9.2003 under Section 406/34 of the IPC against Shyam Lal and Vikas Kumar. The respondent through his counsel Mr. N.C. Goyal, served a notice dated 22.8.2003 by registered acknowledgment due, to the appellants asking for damages. Being aggrieved and affected adversely by the false complaints dated 15.7.2003 and 22.7.2003, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.6 lacs against the defendants, jointly and severally, and also claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants no.1,2 and 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the said defendants preliminary objections were taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as on the ground that the suit was bad for misguide and non-joinder of parties. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint was denied and it was stated that the plaintiff had links with M/s. Shyam Sunder Krishan Kumar, who were doing illegal activities and that is why the name of the respondent was added in those complaints. According to them the defendants in the suit had been defrauded to the extent of lakhs of rupees and thus their grievance was genuine and bonafide. It was further denied that in the complaint lodged by them on 15.7.2003, though name of the plaintiff was not reflected directly, but it did surface that the plaintiff was having dealing with that concern, thus, the suit itself was not maintainable. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 4.12.2004 passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the suit for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs with future interest @ 8% per annum under the provisions of Order 8 Rules 1 & 10. The Court took the view that the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 to 3 was filed after 90 days and a