The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the rule of absolute privilege in civil actions for defamation and the relevance of witness statements in civil suits for defamation.

IA No. 442 of 2012 (under Order VII Rule 11CPC)

1. This is an application by the Defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not give rise to any cause of action.

2. The aforementioned suit has been filed by the Plaintiff claiming damages and compensation in the sum of Rs.25 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to pay him the aforementioned sum as damages and compensation for defamation.

3. The Plaintiff states that he was working as Chief Personnel Officer with Northern Railway from 4th September 1995 to 31st October 1996. The Plaintiff states that he had filed a civil suit in this Court in January 2001 against the Ministry of Railways for grant of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for defamation in connection with a press communique dated 4th November 1996 issued by the Ministry of Railways. When the suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’) on account of revision of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was re-numbered as CS No. 83 of 2009. The said suit was dismissed on 26th July 2010 on the ground of limitation. A copy of the said judgment has been placed on record. The Plaintiff states that he has filed an appeal being RFA No. 757 of 2010 against the said judgment which is pending.

4. Para 13 of the judgment dated 26th July 2010 shows that on behalf of the Defendants in CS No. 83 of 2009 Mr. Sunil Kumar, the Defendant herein, was examined as the sole witness DW 1. The present suit concerns the deposition of the Defendant in the said suit. According to the Plaintiff the answers given by the Defendant during the aforementioned deposition were totally false, not supported by any material on record or by any documentary proof and that the statements were “disparaging to the image and reputation of the Plaintiff and as result is also causing immense mental agony and mental harassment to the Plaintiff.” In particular, the Plaintiff refers to the answers given by the Defendant during his cross-examination on 9th and 23rd August 2005. In the course of his cross-examination on 9th August 2005, the Defendant was asked about the complaint filed by Mrs. Kuljit Kaur on 4th October 1996 to the Railway Minister after which she was suspended from duty on 23rd September 1996 and had been issued a charge sheet on 24th September 1996 for dereliction of duties. That charge sheet was issued by the Plaintiff. She had accused the Plaintiff of subjecting her to sexual harassment. During his cross-examination the Defendant appears to have volunteered that “the records suggest that there seems to be some case pertaining to the past period with regard to sexual harassment in which matter was taken to police but since I have never dealt with those cases, and I am not in a position to give detail thereof. I have not brought the record pertaining to such old cases. I am not sure as to whether any lady member had signed the aforesaid resolutions against the Plaintiff. I do not know the names of ladies who had made complaints as aforesaid other than Ms. Kuljit Kaur”. He further volunteered that “on the basis of my memory I can say that these cases pertains to some maid servants. It is correct that name of Mr. Rana was mentioned in the periodicals of Indian Railways Promotee Officers Federations submitted by other officers as mentioned by me in para 4 of my affidavit.” In his deposition on 23rd August 2005 he stated that “I cannot say as to whether there had been any complaint or not against the Plaintiff during these 30 years of service about causing any sexual harassment to any lady official before the suspension of Ms.Kuljit Kaur but the record suggest that there had been complaint as regards sexual harassment from some of the colleagues of the Rana including maid servants.” The Plaintiff states that the aforementioned portions of the statement made by the Defendan