Sudip Ranjan Sen, J.:-

Heard Mr. Satyen Sarma, learned coun­sel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of the respondents/de­fendants, though the record speaks that A/D for them have returned after service.

2. The appellant has approached this Court by way of an appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment & De­cree dated 20.06.2006 passed in the Money Suit No. 18 of 2004 by the Court of the Ad­ditional District Judge, Jorhat.

3. The appeal memo discloses that the appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2006 in Money Suit No. 18/2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, has preferred this Appeal on the ground that the learned Court below has passed the judgment and decree without appreciating both the facts and law. Hence this appeal.

4. The matter came up for hearing on 06.02.2012 before this Division Bench.

Mr. S. Sarma submitted that the learned Court below simply dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that a translated copy of the news item in the "Amar Asom" dated 13.06.2000 had been produced and the origi­nal thereof had not been proved.

5. The learned counsel also submitted that though the appellant had failed to produce the original newspaper at the time of filing issues and documents at a later stage, a petition was filed before the learned Court below to allow him to produce the publication, in question, but the same was not entertained and the suit was dismissed. In course of his submissions the learned counsel also relied on (1998) 4 5CC 543: Shreenath & Anr. Vs. Rajesh & Ors.,(2001)8SCC 151 :Ms. Grewal & Anr. Vs. Deep Chand Sood & Ors., (2004) 2 GLR 256: Shikhar Chand Falodia &Anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar Sanganeria & Brothers, (1989) 1 5CC 494: Smt. Kir an Bedi Vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr.

6. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2006 and the plaint before the learned Court below, it appears to us that the entire case is based on a news item published at a local daily newspaper called "Amar Asom." The translated version of which is as hereunder:

"PATHOLOGICAL LABORATORIR KANDAHEPATITIS B NOHOAKAIYE

HEPATITIS B PRATIKHEDAK" To the plaintiff under that caption, the de­fendants had published the English translation which was given by the plaintiff in para-5 of the plaint as follows:

"In the wake of mush room growth of innu­merable growth of Pathological Laboratories, in the State of Assam, the creditibility of perfor­mances of the said Laboratories were disputed and during the Pendency of such disputes re­lating to the creditibility one clinical Labora­tory at Jorhat had wrongly diagnosed a lady who was not infected with Hepatitis B. The said lady a resident of Pulibor is intending to seek legal relief before the Consumer Forum.

According to Sri Rituraj Borbora, as con­veyed to the Staff Reporter that his wife Smti. Puhin Borbora, during the first part of the month of May during the current year was attacked by fever. According to the advice of their doctor, her urine was tested by "Barua Clinical Labora­tory" The test report revealed that the patient was suffering from general infection of Jaun­dice and accordingly her treatment was con­ducted. As another medical practitioner, by name Dr. Rajib Borbora alleged to be closely associated with the family of Sri Rituraj Borbora, the husband of Smti. Puhin Borbora on the ad­vice of the doctor arranged to conduct the blood test in the said "Barua Clinical Laboratory" on 18th March. The blood test report of "Barua Clinical Laboratory" revealed that the lady is suffering from Hepatities B which set the entire family grief stricken".

7. Order VII Rule 14 (3) of Civil Proce­dure Code speaks as hereunder:

"a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document