The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the falsity of defamatory imputations and the impact on the plaintiff's reputation in cases of libel.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The plaintiff's suit, for rendition of a decree, for damages, comprised in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, arising from the defendant's libel, stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the defendant, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. Hence the instant appeal by the aggrieved defendant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit of the plaintiff was for a claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of libel. The defendant lodged a complaint with police station Ghumarwin, alleging that the plaintiff was misusing government vehicle for his personal use, for carrying sand from river. On this complaint, police registered a case and carried out investigation at plaintiff's village Panthera and also at Saproon (Solan). The plaintiff was put to harassment and suffered in reputation. On investigation, the complaint was found to be false.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, the defendant took the plea that the investigation was not properly made and that the complaint was in fact true.

4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entilted for the recovery of the suit amount, as claimed? OPP.

2. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit, as alleged? OPD.

5. Relief.

6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 28.02.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:-

1. Whether the judgment of Distt. Judge reversing he judgment of the trial Court and awarding Rs.1 lakh as damages is perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary Evidence, particularly the complaint Ex.PW6/A and document Ex.PW6/B to Ex.PW6/F, Ex. DA and statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 and DW-1 and DW-2?

Substantial question of Law No.1:

8. The plaintiff's suit for damages, arising, from the defendant circulating libelous material, libelous scribings whereof is comprised in Ex.PW-6/A, is contended by the learned counsel appearing, for the defendant/appellant herein, to stand inaptly decreed by the learned first Appellate Court. In making the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing, for the defendant/appellant, has contended that with Ex.PW6/A, not, carrying therein, the name of the plaintiff, hence, the impugned judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned first Appellate Court, thereupon is rendered legally frail. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot, gather any weight, given Ex. P-1 along with the documents appended therewith, clearly bespeaking (a) of plaintiff Ramesh Kumar, being the driver of the vehicle bearing number HP-14-2779, (b) the recitals aforesaid, carrying conclusivity, for want of cogent evidence in rebuttal thereto, being adduced by the defendant/a