JUDGMENT :

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 16.04.2021 in I.A. No. 3 of 2019 in O.S. No. 5281 of 2019 on the file of XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2019 in O.S. No. 5281 of 2019. This Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint.

2. The respondents filed O.S. No. 5281 of 2019 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards damages for the alleged defamatory mail sent by the petitioner to the respondents on 01.04.2014. Petitioner's contention is that the contents of the mail dated 01.04.2014 cannot be construed as defamatory entitling the respondents to file the suit. This email had neither been published nor circulated. There is no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit was not filed within the time and barred by limitation. The contents of the email dated 01.04.2014 is a mere statement neither circulated nor published. The petitioner had only expressed her concern and anguish meted out to her sister at the instance of the first respondent, who is her sister's husband and his family members. There are parallel proceedings pending between the parties. The email was sent when the first respondent/husband has pronounced triple talaq when her sister just gave birth to a child. The respondents contested the petition and submitted that the reading of the contents of the email dated 01.04.2014 will make out a prima facie and clear case that the allegations are perse defamatory, made only with an intention to defame the respondents and their family members in the eyes of friends and relatives and ultimately in the eyes of public. The suit was filed within the time and it is not barred by limitation. The allegations made in the plaint clearly makes out that there is cause of action for filing the suit. The learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on considering the rival submissions dismissed the petition. Against the order of said dismissal, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contents of email dated 01.04.2014 cannot be construed as defamatory. The email was sent expressing the genuine anguish and feelings of the petitioner when the petitioner's husband unjustifiably pronounced triple talaq against his wife when his wife just delivered a baby. Petitioner's sister was harassed by the respondents. That was the reason for sending the email expressing her true feelings. This email was not published or communicated to third parties. Communication and publication are the essential ingredients for making out a case of defamation. When the email was not communicated to the third parties, it cannot be said that the respondents suffered defamation. Email dated 01.04.2014 cannot be the reason for filing the suit and there is no cause of action for filing the suit. However, without considering these aspects, the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the petition filed to reject the plaint. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of XVIII Additional Judge, and prayed for rejecting the plaint.

4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plain reading of email dated 01.04.2014 makes it plain and clear that there are scathing and defamatory allegations made against the husband/first respondent and his family members, which are not true. This email was sent not only to the first respondent, but to his close relatives as well. Sending email to the close relatives of the husband/first respondent amounts to publishing or communicating the email with defamatory contents. The petitioner has not filed written statement in the suit,