IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in claims of defamation and wrongful confinement, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to substantiate their claims with credible evidence, particularly regarding the impact on reputation.

JUDGMENT

Murahari Sri Raman, J.

The challenge:

Assailing the Judgment dated 01.12.2009 of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhenkanal rendered in RFA No.61 of 2006 directed against the Judgment and decree dated 14.09.2006 and 21.09.2006 respectively passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhenkanal in CS No.50 of 2005, though second appeal, RSA bearing No.102 of 2010, was preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for brevity), being allowed to be converted vide Order dated 30.09.2010 to Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner (Respondent-Plaintiff) approached this Court invoking provisions of Section 115, with a prayer to set aside the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Court.The facts:

2. The facts as adumbrated by the petitioner in the civil revision petition reveals that in the Civil Suit bearing No.50 of 2005 instituted before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhenkanal it was the case of the petitionerrespondent-plaintiff that on 02.07.2005 at about 9.00 P.M. during a quarrel that ensued between two groups in which one Subhendu Kumar Nayak while mercilessly being assaulted, the petitioner was present at that relevant time and place of occurrence. He intervened and rescued Subhendu Kumar Nayak from the clutches of miscreants. Thereafter, at around 10.00 P.M. the petitioner and said Suvendu Kumar Nayak went to Dhenkanal Town Police Station for lodging First Information Report, but the present opposite party, the Diary Charge Officer (for short, 'DCO') on that day at Dhenkanal Town Police Station, refused to receive the First Information Report ('FIR'). When asked, the opposite party suddenly became violent and tore the FIR. Said opposite party not only abused using filthy language but also wrongfully confined the petitioner and put him inside the hazat (lock up) of the Dhenkanal Town Police Station. Later the opposite party released from the confinement and forcibly obtained an undertaking from the petitioner though the latter had not committed any offence. It was the case of the petitioner that he was threatened of facing dire consequence, if he would divulge the incident to any other person.

2.1. However, the matter got reported in the daily newspapers, viz., Sambad and Dharitri etc. which the petitioner, an Advocate by profession and practising in the locality, considered to have got his reputation tarnished. Being confused the petitioner tried to bring the matter to the notice of Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal by sending a copy of the FIR, which was denied to be registered by the DCO at the Dhenkanal Town Police Station, by registered post with A.D. incurring an expense of Rs.35/-. Therefore, the petitioner has valued the suit at Rs.36/-.

2.2. In the suit instituted against Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhenkanal Town Police Station, the petitioner has prayed for relief of Re.l/- in token of his loss of prestige and dignity in the society and also Rs.35/- for sustaining loss on account of expense made towards sending the FIR by registered post with A.D.

2.3. It was the case of opposite party-defendant before the trial court that the suit was not maintainable not only in absence of service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also for non-joinder of necessary party inasmuch as the Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal, to whom the petitioner-plaintiff claimed to have sent the copy of the FIR by registered post with A.D incurring an expense of Rs.35/-, was not arrayed as party to the suit. Hence, the suit being defective, is liable to be dismissed.

2.4. It is elicited from the written statement filed by the opposite party-defendant that he has denied the presence of the petitioner with Subhendu Kumar Nayak at Dhenkanal Police Station on 02.07.2005 for lodging the FIR. It is clarified by the opposite party that there was altercation between two groups and both the groups came to Dhenkanal Police Station to report allegation against each other. Later both