Rajiv Shakdher, J.

IA No.1742/2012 (u/O. 7 R. 11 CPC by D-1 & 2) and IA No.2193/2013 (u/O. 7 R. 11 CPC by D-5, 7 & 8)

1. Interlocutory application (IA) No.1742/2012 has been filed by defendant nos.1 and 2 while the other application, being: IA No.2193/2013 has been filed by defendant nos.5, 7 & 8. These are applications filed for seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The grounds articulated in the application are broadly as follows : First, that the suit filed which is a suit for defamation is barred by limitation. Second, the plaint has not been verified in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC). In this behalf, it is stated that the verification of the plaint is by one, Mr. Suresh Kumar Keshari, said to be the brother of the plaintiff. It is averred that Sh. Suresh Kumar Keshari not being, in any way personally involved with or in the knowledge of the allegations made in the plaint could not have verified the plaint in the manner in which the verification has been carried out. Lastly, the suit as instituted by Mr. Suresh Kumar Keshari on behalf of the plaintiff is without authority in as much as it is based on a special power of attorney which empowers the power of attorney holder to deal with the property of the plaintiff and not institute a suit for defamation.

2.1 I must also note that arguments were also advanced on behalf of defendant no.6, 9 & 10, who have raised the very same assertions, though no application has been filed on their behalf. In addition to the above submissions, it is averred on behalf of the said defendants that there is no cause of action arising as against them as they have neither spoken nor published any defamatory statement against the plaintiff.

FACTS

3. In the background of what is stated above, all that, I am required to see, at this stage, while dealing with the captioned applications is, the averments made in the plaint.

3.1 Broadly, the suit for defamation has been filed against 10 defendants. Defendant no.1 & 2 are the original complainants, who had filed a complaint against the plaintiff alleging sexual harassment. Defendant nos.3 and 4 are apparently students in IIT, Delhi, while defendant nos.5 to 8 and 10 are professors who like plaintiff are employed by IIT, Delhi. Defendant no.9 is an employee of IIT Delhi who was appointed as a Presenting Officer in a departmental enquiry conducted against the plaintiff.

3.2 Though the plaint is prolix running into nearly 140 paragraphs, it does not detail out with specificity the role of each of the defendants; the averments are diffused and sprayed all over. There are allegations though against each of the defendants with regard to their alleged role in defaming and / or maligning the reputation of the plaintiff.

4. Therefore, before I proceed further, it may be relevant to give a synoptic view of the facts which led to the institution of the suit: -

4.1 Defendant nos.1 and 2 evidently, joined the plaintiff, as research students for obtaining a Ph.D on 02.01.2007.

4.2 Between January, 2007 and May, 2007, defendants went on field trips with the plaintiff. These field trips took the defendants to places outside Delhi. It is suggested that while defendant no.1 went on two field trips, defendant no.2 went on one field trip with the plaintiff. It is also averred that though defendants did not perform as they should have, the plaintiff gave both defendants good grades in May 2007. This averment is followed by an averment to the effect that on 15.05.2007, the plaintiff declined to give a “satisfactory progress report” which, perhaps, was necessary for award of final grades qua defendant nos.1 and 2’s research in the first semester. This report, it is suggested, apparently, led to an application being filed by the said defendants on 06.06.2007, for change of supervisor. The complaints, filed by defendant nos.1 and 2, are dated 06.06.2007. In these complaints, the reason put forth