The legal point established is that while statements made to police officers may be privileged, specific defamatory allegations can still be considered in determining the cause of action and the rejection of applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 of the ADJ-05, South, Saket, New Delhi in CS No. 9190/16 whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the applicant herein as defendant thereof was declined, it having been observed inter alia to the effect that for deciding the said application in the CS No. 9190/16, the plaintiff has specifically averred that the allegations made against him are defamatory per se. It was also observed vide the said impugned order that the plaint disclosed a cause of action on the basis of contents therein and that it was to be proved by the defendant i.e. the applicant/petitioner during the trial that the plaint did not give rise to a cause of action and that the plaint could not be summarily rejected.

2. Copy of the petition that has been filed by the respondent to the present petition to whom so far no notice has been issued the said suit filed by the respondents to the present petition, arrayed as the plaintiff, to the suit in CS No. 9190/16 indicates that itself seeks damages of Rs.20 lakhs alongwith future interest @ 12% per annum apart from costs.

3. According to the averments made in the said plaint, the defendant i.e. the present petitioner herein was appointed as the President of an illegally formed/unregistered and sham RWA named “Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, MIG Flats Owners Association” which was neither registered nor registered under the Societies Registration Act and was a non-entity.

4. The averments made in the plaint inter alia indicate disputes between the parties pursuant to which there was FIR No. 325/14 under Sections 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also registered against the plaintiff on the complaint made by the defendant i.e. the present petitioner herein to the effect that the same was on the basis of the concocted allegations made by the defendant to the said suit through a false and concocted complaint of a resident of the locality. The averments made in the plaint indicate vide para 17 thereof that subsequently a compromise agreement was executed on 19.01.2015 between the plaintiff, arrayed as the respondent to the present petition and the defendant i.e. the petitioner of the present petition and the other residents of the colony vide which the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw seven different cases filed by the plaintiff and had agreed to the withdrawal of the FIR No. 325/14 under Sections 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the plaintiff. The said plaint however indicates that after the matter had been settled, the matter was referred to mediation and after the said matters were settled in mediation all the cases between the parties were withdrawn in the Trial Court in March-April, 2015 and thereafter a meeting was called on 08.02.2015 by the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein to which all residents of the colony were invited. The submissions made in the plaint however indicate to the effect that the plaintiff i.e. the respondent on the request of the residents of the colony had been deprived of Rs.1,000/- by the defendant on the pretext of collecting funds for regulatization of the unauthorized two room structure being used by the defendant as the office of the non-existent RWA on 27.07.2015 filed a complaint for extortion, cheating and intimidation against the defendant which was registered as DD No. 62B with the PS Malviya Nagar.

5. The complaint of the said suit i.e. the respondent to the present petition alongwith other office bearers of the registered RWA i.e. Sh. Joseph, Sh. Jai Gupta, Sh. Somnath Ramphal, Sh. Dilip Krishnan are stated to have received summons for appearance on 05.10.2015 in a proceedings u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. from the Court of the ACP, South District, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and that on appearing before the Court of the ACP, South District, the plaintiff of the said suit for the first time after having knowledge that the defendant had compromised and withdraw