Defamation suit for libel time-barred beyond one year from publication; receipt of exoneration reports does not extend limitation. Plaint rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) if averments disclose limitation bar.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant revision petition, the petitioners/defendants have taken an exception to order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P., whereby their application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. It is relevant to notice here that the order impugned herein was assailed by the petitioners/defendants at the first instance by filing an appeal under Order 43 of the Code. The appeal was dismissed and thereafter the present petition was filed, however, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioners/defendants preferred an application bearing CMP(M) No. 340 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant revision petition against the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the appeal had been preferred in the first instance under a bonafide mistaken belief, whereas the remedy by way of appeal was not available. The said application of the petitioners/defendants has been allowed by this Court on 14.11.2025.

3. The respondents/plaintiff has filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages on account of defamation.

4. It is averred in the plaint that respondent/plaintiff is a Cooperative Society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. The respondent/plaintiff has been disbursing loans for agricultural purpose as part of its objectives. It is alleged that the petitioners/defendants No.1 and 2 had also availed loan facility on more than one occasion and in respect of the loan obtained by the said persons second time, there were defaults in payments. As per the respondent/plaintiff in order to avoid legal action for non- payment of loan amount, the defendants had indulged in making false complaints to the authorities and had thereby lowered the estimation of respondent/plaintiff in the eyes of its members and general public at large.

5. Respondent/plaintiff has taken a specific plea that petitioner/defendant had submitted false and baseless complaints to the Director General of Police, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Himachal Pradesh on 16.06.2011 against the Secretary and Managing Committee of plaintiff. The said complaint was sent by the Director General of Police, State Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, Himachal Pradesh to Directorate of Cooperative Societies, which further had sent the complaint to Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Una for inquiry and investigation. The said official had got the inquiry made through the Block Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Amb, District Una, who vide report dated 02.12.2012 submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Una had exonerated the Secretary and office bearers of respondent/plaintiff from all charges.

6. It has further been alleged that the defendants No.1 and 2 had issued a notice to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Una through their counsel on 22.10.2011 in which again the same allegations were repeated. The allegations were again got verified through the District Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Una, who vide detailed report dated 08.06.2012 had given clean chit to the plaintiff/society.

7. As per the plaintiff, another complaint on the same allegations was made by defendant No.1 to Assistant Registrar Cooperative S