The burden of proof in defamation suits lies with the claimant to establish publication and social harm. Appellate courts exercise discretionary power to admit additional evidence only under exceptional circumstances, provided there is valid justification for earlier non-production; such powers cannot be used to rectify trial-stage lacunae.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND' J.

Factual Matrix:-

1. The appellant in this case is Dr. (Mrs.) K. Lakshmiton Singha who has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 in Money Suit No.8/2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge' Senior Division No.1' Cachar' Silchar dismissing the suit and holding that the appellant is not entitled to compensation for libelous and slanderous imputations by the respondent against the appellant. Both the appellant and the respondent will be referred to' according to their original standing in the Money suit. The respondent defendant is Dr. Bijoy Bhushan Das.

2. The appellant/Plaintiff through her plaint submitted that she hails from a renowned family and her husband had served under the Assam Civil Service as Executive Officer' Zilla Parishad-cum-ADC. The plaintiff was a senior Grade Assistant Professor and at the time' she filed the Money Suit' she was holding the post of in-charge Principal of the esteemed Cachar College at Silchar. She had an unblemished career for 30 years and was well reputed as a social worker. The defendant is a retired Principal of G.C. College' Silchar and presently practicing as an advocate in Cachar' Silchar.

3. The defendant respondent by addressing a pamphlet without any date (probably in the month of May' 2016) to the members of Cachar College and without marking the pamphlet as ‘confidential’' ‘restricted’' ‘secret’ or any other such grading'circulated the same to the general public and also endorsed copies to the Education Commissioner' Government of Assam' DHE' Assam. According to the appellant' this pamphlet which was marked as document -1which contains various allegations' are utterly baseless and false.

4. After receipt of the pamphlet (Doc-1) followed by many other letters as stated by the Director of Higher Education' from the defendant' the Director of Higher Education' Assam vide memo No. DHE/CE/Misc/152/2016/5-A' dated 12.05.2016' called the plaintiff and the defendant to attend his office chamber on 25.05.2016 along with two GB members namely (1) Dr. Ajay Ray –Teachers’ Representative and (2) Professor C.R. Bhattacharjee VC’s Nominee' for a discussion on the matter. However' no action was taken against the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently by another undated and similar pamphlet (probably in the month of January 2017) addressed to the MP Silchar constituency' circulated (DOC -2)and endorsed copies and sundries to all including the Commissioner' Higher Education Assam without marking the same as ‘ confidential’ ' ‘restricted’' ‘secret’ or any other such grading and this pamphlet was also circulated to the general public captioned as subject “Cachar College Scam and Scandal 2015-16”. Derogatory and defamatory allegations were leveled against the plaintiff through the subsequent pamphlet also referred to as DOC-2.

5. It is further contended that the Director of Higher Education' Assam' on receipt of DOC-2 memo No.G(B)AC/25/2004/361 dated 19.01.2017 ordered for a copy of the DOC-2 and directed the plaintiff to submit a detailed report on the matter. The letter was received by the plaintiff on 06.02.2017 and accordingly the plaintiff submitted a detailed report. The Director of Higher Education then visited Cachar Col