JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 2010, who had succeeded in convincing the trial court to grant a decree for damages for defamation, upon the said decree being reversed by the appellate court in A.S.No.37 of 2012 has come up with this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants, who belong to a rival labour union, made certain publications alleging certain irregularities on the part of the Child Development Project Officer Mrs.S.Karpagam. While doing so, they had claimed that the plaintiff who is working as a Junior Assistant in the office is also in collusion with the Child Development Project Officer. According to the plaintiff, a bit notice, which has been circulated in and around office, had resulted in publication of a defamatory allegations against him and lowering of his image in the eyes of the general public.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that there was no publication of the material said to be defamatory. According to the defendants, all that was circulated is an invitation to the members of CITU to participate in a protest being held against the activities of the Child Development Project Officer and the plaintiff who was a Junior Assistant in the said office. It is also contended that all the allegations were found to be true in an enquiry. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff has not made out that his image was lowered in the eyes of the general public because of the circulation of the bit notices and therefore, he is not entitled to a decree for damages.

4. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 one Subburaj, who is the owner of the printing press was examined as P.W.2 and one Rajendra Cholan, who was the Superintendent in the office of Melavaippar drainage scheme was examined as P.W.3. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one Alaguselvi and Govindammal were examined as D.Ws 2 and 3. Exts.B1 and B.2 were marked. The copies of the complaints and proceedings taken by the Department on such complaints were marked as Exts.X.1 to X12.

5. The trial court, upon consideration of the materials on record, concluded that the plaintiff has made out a case for defamation and decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2012. The appellate court however disagreed with the findings of the trial court and held that the plaintiff has not made out a case of defamation. On the said finding, the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal.

6. The following questions of law were framed by this Court at the time of admission :

i) Whether the first Appellate Court is correct in giving a finding that the absence of specific denial under Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C would not amount to admission of the pleadings in plaint?

ii) Whether the first Appellate Court is correct in saying that the plaintiff did not prove the facts when they are specifically admitted by the defendants in the pleadings as well as the evidence?

iii) Whether the first appellate court is correct in dismissing the suit, when the publications of defendants' statement, reached the third parties, by defaming the reputation of plaintiff?

iv) Whether the Government servants/defendants could be in the Labour Union, affiliated to political parties and formed the union is against civil service code of Government servants?

7. I have heard Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr.A.Hajamohideen Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 8.

8. As could be seen from the cause list, the first respondent is a Labour Union represented by its Convener Mr.M.Sakthivel. Mr.M.Sakthivel has been shown as the second respondent. It is stated at the bar that the second respondent is no more. Therefore, the appeal against the second respondent has abated. Being the suit for defamation, there is no question of legal representatives being brought on record.

9. Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing