KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. U. Dutta, the learned advocate for the appellant as well as Mr. M.P. Sarma, the learned advocate, who has appeared on instructions from the learned advocates for the respondents on record.

2. At the very outset, the learned advocates for both the sides submit that similar set of facts and common issues of law arise for consideration of this Court in both the appeals, which are between the same parties. Hence, both the appeals are heard together.

3. By RFA No. 12/2010, filed under section 96 CPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 193/2003, by which the suit filed by the appellant seeking a sum of Rs. 5.00 Crore as damages from the respondents for publishing defamatory news in Asomiya Pratidin, an Assamese language daily newspaper dated 27.06.2003, was dismissed.

4. By RFA No. 15/2010, filed under section 96 CPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 88/2003, by which the suit filed by the appellant seeking a sum of Rs. 5.00 Crore as damages from the respondents for publishing defamatory news in Asomiya Pratidin, an Assamese language daily dated 05.05.2003, was dismissed

5. The case of the appellant in the plaint was that at the relevant time, the appellant was posted as Inspector General of Police (Communication), Assam and Director of Police (Communication), Assam. Bereft of details, inter-alia, it was pleaded that he is highly educated and a highly decorated Assam Police personnel, having received various awards and appreciation to his credit. He has designed many educational courses and is associated with many Committees and Institutions including Assam Police Radio Organisation, Tezpur University, etc., and that he comes from a nationalist family background. It was stated that because of his many faceted qualities including high level of integrity, he is loved and respected and has earned an impeccable reputation. However, his prestige, good name, image, reputation and respect in the society had considerably suffered loss because of false, fabricated, malicious and defamatory news article, which was prominently published in the 27.06.2003 in Asomiya Pratidin, which was stated to be published with malafide intention to defame the appellant and to tarnish his image before the fellow officers, superiors, employees and trainees in the Police Department in particular and before the public in general.

Therefore, claiming that the cause of action for the suit arose on the various dates as mentioned in the two suits, the appellant had prayed for a decree of Rs. 5.00 Crore in both the suits as damages and compensation for defamation and for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from publishing defamatory news, views, articles and editorials against the appellant in future, for costs, etc.

6. The respondents contested the suit by filing their joint written statement, thereby denying the claim and by justifying their news article, further claiming that the appellant, being a public servant, was answerable to the public. It was stated that certain actions on his part, as mentioned therein, were illegal. Hence, the respondents had prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.

7. Upon pleadings, the learned trial Court had framed the following issues for trial in MS 193/2003:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the plaintiff has right to filed suit for defamation?

3. Whether the alleged news items were published with intention to defame the plaintiff and damage his reputation in the esteem of the society?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get damage and compensation as prayed for?

5. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

8. In connection with trial in MS 88/2003, the learned trial