B.P. Katakey and P.K. Musahary, JJ.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in Money Suit No. 140/2003 filed by the appellant as plaintiff, dismissing the same.

2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted Money Suit No. 3/1997 in the learned Court below claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 3 crores with interest against the present respondent as defendant contending inter alia that the defendant-respondent has lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Zero on 18.9.1997 with copy to the Chief Minister; Chief Secretary; Commissioner (Vigilance); Secretary, PHE Department; and to the CBI, making defamatory statement to the effect that the plaintiff, a Government servant, is corrupt and amassed a huge fortune by corrupt means and also an encroacher of the Government land. It has further been pleaded in the plaint that because of such false and baseless allegations the plaintiff's reputation in the society has been lowered in the estimation of the public, as he belongs to a highly respectable family of Zero.

3. The defendant-respondent, on receipt of the summons, entered appearance and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant, but admitting lodging of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 by him before the Deputy Commissioner, Zero. The defendant-respondent, however, has stated that the application dated 18.9.1997 being a complaint before the competent authority relating to the conduct of a public officer, the contents of such complaint cannot constitute defamation. It has also been pleaded in the said written statement that reading of the entire complaint petition as a whole transpires that the defendant has stated that the plaintiff-appellant might have constructed the huge building by corrupt means. According to the defendant-respondent, such statement cannot be termed as defamatory and in any case the reputation of the plaintiff-appellant in the estimation of the general public has not been lowered. The further stand taken in the written statement is that there was no publication of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 as the same has been lodged with the competent authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner and it is the plaintiff-appellant who had caused the publication of such complaint.

4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the money suit is maintainable and triable by the Court in present form?

2. Whether there is any cause of action against defendant?

3. Whether defendant had a right to lodge complaint to different authorities?

4. Whether defendant had right to lodge a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Zero to cancel the land Plot 79 or not?

5. Whether the action of defendant amounts to defamation or not?

6. Whether two pleadings were filed on the same issue and with different statement or not?

5. The plaintiff-appellant to substantiate the claim for damages for the alleged defamatory statement examined 7 witnesses, namely the plaintiff himself (PW 1), Sri Michi Laling (PW 2), Sri Liagi Tapa (PW 3), Sri Leegang Tachang (PW 4), Shri Tage Tada (PW 5), Shri Tage Tado (PW 6) and Shri Bamin Nime (PW 7). The defendant-respondent examined himself as DW 1. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the respective parties. The plaintiff-appellant has also proved the complaint dated 18.9.1997 lodged by the defendant-respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, which has been marked as Ext. P/1. The defendant-respondent has proved the plaintiff's signature at page-3 of the plaint filed subsequently, which has been marked as Ext. D/1 and also a cutting of a newspaper. "The Arunachal Times" marked as M. Ext. D/1.

6. The learned Court below vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 dismissed the suit on the ground that there being no previous criminal proceeding instituted by the defendant-respondent, where the plaintiff-appellant is acquitted or