Bapna, J—This is a revision against an order of the learned Munsif of Hindaun, dated 4th November, 1952

2. The respondent. Rikhab Das filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Hindaun, on the 28th November, 1949, on the allegation that a certain news item sent by Raghubir Sharan was published in the newspaper "Janta" in its issue No. 16 of 28th November, 1948, in which the plaintiff was much maligned. It was alleged that the defendant, Shri Chiranji Lal, was the editor of that paper. It was alleged that the said paper had circulation in various cities of Rajasthan, and when its copy was received in Aindaun, the plaintiff came to know of the news item, which was greatly defamatory. It was alleged that the cause of action arose at Hindaun when the paper was received on the 7th of December, 1948 He claimed Rs, 1000/- as damages.

3. The defendant admitted that he was the chief editor in name, but that the editing was done by other persons He did not admit the jurisdiction of the court, and pleaded bona fides in respect of the article.

4. Various issues were struck, one of which was whether the cause of action arose a Hindaun, and the court of Munsif, Hindaun, had jurisdiction. Evidence was led on behalf of the parties, and the court held by order of 4th November, 1952, that the court had jurisdiction. The present revision is directed against that order.

5. It may be mentioned that the case of the petitioner was that he had given a declaration Ex. D. 1 of being the printer and publisher of Janta newspaper to be published at Jaipur as the organ of a party known as Lok Parishad, that it was only distributed in Jaipur City, and that he had not by himself or by his agents sent the particular issue or any issue foe that matter to Hindaun, and, therefore, there was no publication of the offending article at Hindaun by the defendant or his agents, and for that reason the court at Hindaun had no jurisdiction. On behalf of the plaintiff it was said that the particular copy of the issue of Janta Ex. P. 2 was given to the plaintiff for reading by Surajmal Vakil who used to receive it from the Janta office as subscriber. It was said that there were other subscribers also of that news-paper at Hindaun and that the despatch of that issue to at Hindaun by the Janta office controlled, by the defendant gave jurisdiction to the court at Hindaun.

6. I have carefully gone into the evidence and the judgment of learned Munsif, and heard detailed arguments. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Munsif is not correct. He has given 6 reasons for coming to the finding to which he arrived:—

1. Paras 6, 7 and 10 of the plaint which relate to the publication at Hindaun were not specifically denied.

2. The despatch register and the list of subscribers summoned by the plaintiff from the defendant were not produced, which raised an inference adverse to the defendant.

3. The copy of the newspaper of 28th November, 1948, received from Surajmal by the plaintiff and produced in court (originally produced in the criminal court and read as evidence in this case) bore postal marks to show that it was despatched from Jaipur, and received at Hindaun by post.

4. The statement of Surajmal P. W. 2 purporting to cut at the root of the plaintiffs case was not reliable and was given more in partisan spirit in favour of the defendant, and the other evidence of the plaintiff showing publication by Janta office of the said issue at Hindaun was reliable and should be accepted.

5. The defendant as a leader of the Lok Parishad had organised a meeting a few days before the publication of the issue where the matters dealt with in the news item were agitated, which led to an inference that the issue must have been sent by Janta office for circulation at Hindaun.

6. A reply by the Janta office to a communication by the plaintiff contained a note expressing a hope that the plaintiff must be a frequent reader of the Janta paper and it was taken to support the plaintiffs version that the issues of Jant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document