Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Rampal Sihag - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Gurmeet Singh - Respondent - Respondent
CR-405 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Defamation - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Section 151 - [Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC, Section 115 of CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1(e) of CPC, which requires the plaint to contain the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose. The court highlighted that the plaint in the present case did not disclose any cause of action for defamation, as it lacked details of the defamatory statements and the authorities where they were made. The court also referenced the doctrine of judicial privilege and absolute privilege, emphasizing that statements made in affidavits before a tribunal with judicial or quasi-judicial functions are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for a defamatory action. The court allowed the revision petition and ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) on the grounds of not disclosing any cause of action and being barred by law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of damages for defaming and dragging the plaintiff into false and frivolous complaints before various authorities. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action for defamation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for defamation as it lacked details of the defamatory statements and the authorities where they were made. The court also emphasized the doctrine of judicial privilege and absolute privilege, stating that statements made in affidavits before a tribunal with judicial or quasi-judicial functions are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for a defamatory action.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for defamation and the applicability of the doctrine of judicial privilege and absolute privilege.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for defamation as it lacked essential details. It also emphasized the principle of absolute privilege for statements made in affidavits before tribunals with judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) on the grounds of not disclosing any cause of action and being barred by law.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that a plaint must disclose the cause of action, including specific details of the defamatory statements and the authorities where they were made (!) (!) .
Statements made in affidavits before tribunals with judicial or quasi-judicial functions are considered absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim (!) (!) .
The plaint in the case failed to mention the specific defamatory statements, the dates they were made, or the authorities involved, which is essential for establishing a cause of action (!) (!) .
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law due to the privilege attached to statements made in judicial proceedings (!) (!) .
The court held that the absence of specific details and the failure to establish the defamatory nature of the statements warranted rejection of the plaint (!) (!) .
The doctrine of judicial privilege was reaffirmed, stating that statements made during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are protected and cannot be grounds for a defamation suit (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court allowed the revision petition, ordered the rejection of the plaint under the relevant procedural rules, and disposed of pending applications accordingly (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of damages for defaming and dragging the plaintiff-respondent into false and frivolous complaints before various authorities i.e. HRERA, Registrar Firm and Societies, Panchkula, CM Window and State Registrar of Societies etc. The defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same did not disclose any cause of action. It was averred in the application that in the suit, there is no mention of any statements which are defamatory in nature. It has also not been mentioned in the plaint as to where and when the alleged defamatory statements are stated to have been made. It was further averred that there were no details mentioned other than vague accusations. The plaintiff-respondent contested the application and filed a reply to the same. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the issue could not be gone into without affording an opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendant-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has, while referring to the plaint (Annexure P-2), stated that the ingredients for filing of a suit for defamation are missing from the plaint. No details of any derogatory/defamatory statements alleged to have been made by the defendant-petitioner are given in the plaint. Even the details of the cases before the various authorities as alleged are not mentioned in the plaint. Learned counsel has further stated that a statement made before a court or a quasi-judicial authority is absolutely privileged and for the said reasons it cannot be made basis for a defamatory action. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Surinder Singh [CR No.6008 of 2010 decided on 29.09.2010] and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Brig. B.C. Rana (Retd.) Vs. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors. [2013 (198) DLT 35].
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has contended that it is only the contents of the plaint which are to be seen at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the cause of action is clearly made out on a meaningful reading of the plaint and hence, the impugned order dismissing the application has rightly been passed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Ram Parkash Vs. Jagdeep Singh Ghangas [2021 (2) RCR (Rent) 428] and Nanji Sunderji Sejpal Vs. Vithuram Shivlal Lahoti Denagi Trust & Ors. [2019 (2) CivCC 47].
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC reads as under :
“1. Particulars to be contained in plaint - The plaint shall contain the following particulars :
(a) the name of the Court in which the suit is brought;
(b) the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;
(c) the name, description and place of residence of the defendant, so far as they can be ascertained;
(d) where the plaintiff or the defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect;
(e) the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose;
(f) the facts showing that the Court has jurisdiction;
(g) the relief which the plaintiff claims;
(h) where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of his claim, the amount so allowed, or relinquished; and
(i) a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaint must disclose the cause of action, and statements made in affidavits before tribunals with judicial or quasi-judicial functions are a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaint must disclose the cause of action for defamation, and statements made before quasi-judicial authorities are absolutely privileged and....
A cause of action for defamation requires publication of the alleged defamatory statements; mere issuance of a letter without public circulation does not suffice.
The right to free speech does not exempt individuals from civil liability for defamatory statements, especially when additional remarks beyond a complaint are made public.
A cause of action would arise on the basis of which the plaintiff can approach the court. It would definitely be a different matter, whether ultimately the plaintiff succeeds in the suit or not.
A cause of action would arise on the basis of which the plaintiff can approach the court. It would definitely be a different matter, whether ultimately the plaintiff succeeds in the suit or not.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
