JUDGMENT

Sen, J. - This is plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated 30th September 1924, dismissing his suit for damages against Bishunath, defendant, founded upon certain defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff belongs to a respectable family and is a man of substance. The defendant is a tenant in the plaintiff's zamindari. Strained relations had existed between the parties for some time. The defendant had addressed a petition to the District Magistrate of Fatehpur through his son-in-law, Mukatdhari, on 9th February 1922. This has been marked as Ex. 1 of the Munsif's record. A second petition was addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Khakraitu through the same son-in-law and on the same date. This has been marked as Ex. 2. These petitions contained a number of serious imputations against the plaintiff. A Sub-Inspector, Faruq Ahmad, was deputed to investigate into the matter. During the progress of the investigation a third petition was submitted by the defendant and delivered to the investigating officer on 21st February 1922. This was signed by the defendant Bishunath and also by Mukatdhari. This document has been marked as Ex. 14.

2. I have been told that all the three petitions contained in substance the same imputations. The learned Munsif has reproduced in his judgment the contents of Ex. 14:

All these persons (Samiullah Khan and others) rushed up to my house, six of them got at my door and some to my well, and from both the sides some got up to my house, got hold of my son-in-law, twisted his hand and snatched away six gold mohars from his person and delivered them to Samiullah Khan and persons who were present at my door, set fire to my house and threw brick bats and took away my son-in-law fastened in a rope.... I charge them for extortion and forcibly taking of gold mohars and wrongfully imprisoning and taking my son-in-law.

3. The three petitions, one after the other, illustrated the attitude of the defendant. His action was deliberate and determined, so that he might be sure of his victim without any possibility of missfire.

4. The Sub-Inspector sent up his report that the charges against the plaintiff were unfounded and false.

5. The defendant was prosecuted u/s 182, I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 in the criminal trial. The defendant put up a bold front and admitted having made all the three petitions already alluded to.

6. In the present action the plaintiff alleges that the statements of the defendant were false and malicious, and that he was defamed, degraded and put to mental worry. He claimed Rs. 1,000 as compensation from the defendant.

7. The pleadings in the case were very far from satisfactory. The essential particulars were not set out in detail, nor the facts narrated in their due chronological sequence. The plaintiff ought to have set out with distinctness the statements in the three exhibits separately which were libellous, and he ought to have scrupulously avoided any paraphrases circumlocution or argument.

8. At a later stage the plaintiff was required to submit further particulars, and this he did on 2nd August 1923. But in the document submitted by the plaintiff he does not give all the details necessary, and the document is more apologetic than informing. The trial Court should have insisted upon the particulars being submitted with greater precision so that the statements complained of as defamatory in all the three petitions separately should have been marked off into distinct paragraphs and not jumbled together.

9. This defect, however, did not prejudice the trial of the suit in any way. The defendant knew the lay of the land. Moreover, all the three petitions were placed on the record and separately exhibited.

10. The defendant, in his written statement dated 7th May 1923, pleaded justification. He further pleaded that the statements were privileged, that h