The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of absolute privilege in judicial proceedings, emphasizing the public policy behind the rule and the safeguards against abuse of the process.

1. Appellant herein filed the suit for damages on account of certain defamatory questions put and statements made in the course of trial in a prior suit by or at the instance of the respondent herein. The trial court dismissed the suit and the dismissal has been confirmed in appeal. Hence this second appeal.

2. Appellant herein filed O. S.254/1978 in the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulm claiming decree for certain sums of money alleged to have been borrowed from him by the respondent. Appellant then was working as clerk of an advocate practising in the Haripad Munsiff's Court. Respondent was earlier working as Examiner in that court though subsequently transferred to Sub Court, Alleppey. Allegation in the suit was that the respondent was taking loans from him and also used to get goods and articles purchased through him with his money on undertaking to repay the amount to him

when she gets her monthly salary. She did not return the money but assured him that the money would be repaid next month. Even though there was no such repayment, appellant went on advancing loans and purchasing articles for her. Respondent put off making repayment and ultimately the suit was filed. A sum of over Rupees four thousand was claimed in the suit. Respondent contested the suit denying the transactions alleged. She, however, contended that the suit was filed with the intention of defaming and intimidating her and causing annoyance to her, a young lady who was working as a Government servant. Trial court decreed the suit. Respondent challenged the decree in appeal. Appellate court reversed the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the suit with costs in both the courts. Appellant herein filed S.A. 443/80 but this Court dismissed the same at the admission stage. It was thereafter that the appellant filed the present suit claiming damages for loss of reputation on account of defamatory statements said to have been made in the course of trial.

3. Exts. Al and A2 are certified copies of plaint and written statement in the prior suit. There was an attachment before Judgment. Ext. A3 is a copy of the petition filed by the respondent against the attachment. Ext. A4 is a copy of the issues raised in the plaint. Appellant was examined as P.W 1 in the prior suit. The advocate who appeared for the respondent in the prior suit has been examined in this suit as P.W.I. In the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff in the prior suit he put the following questions: (Did you feel infatuated with the defendant?) ( Be,pg St. George A room not engage a room in St. George in Alleppey and invite the defendant for illicit purpose). Ext. A6 is a copy of the deposition of the respondent in the prior suit. In the course of her evidence, she stated: (Plaintiff made improper talk. I did not agree) in answer to the question as to why the plaintiff had filed the suit. This portion is Ext. AT

4. The two courts were satisfied that the suggestions in the questions put to the appellant and the suggestion made by the respondent in the course of her evidence in the prior suit constitute per se defamatory statements. However, both courts held that since these statements were made by or at the instance of a party in the course of trial in a judicial proceeding, the maker of the statements has absolute privilege and therefore, appellant has no cause of action. It is this finding which is strenuously and seriously challenged by learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Apparently, in the written statement filed in the prior suit, respondent did not refer to the improper overtures said to have been made by the appellant. Evidently, she instructed her counsel about it and the evidence of her advocate is that he asked the questions on instruction. She herself referred to it in her evidence in the prior suit. The case in the prior suit was that appellant repeatedly advanced loans to the respondent in cash and was purchasing goods and articles for her out of his own money.