1987 Supreme(MP) 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.D. Mulye, J.
Basantilal - Applicant
Vs.
Laxminarayan - Non-applicant
C.R. No. 331 of 1983 (I)
Decided On : 16-07-1987

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.1, R. 3 and 3 – A – suit on joint torts – all tort – feasors can be joined in one suit.

       (2) Tort – several tort – feasors – can be joined in one suit.

        Short Note

       The facts giving rise to this petition, may be stated, in brief, thus: Respondent No.1 is a practising advocate at Khargone. His wife Smt. Padma died on 30th May, 1981 at an young age. When her body was taken to the cremation ground and funeral was about to take place, at the instance of respondent No.2 Jhapu, who had lodged a report at the Police station, the police seized the dead body from the funeral pyre. A post – mortem examination of the dead body was conducted and according to that report nothing suspicious was found. This incident was published by the petitioner in the newspaper 'Nayi Duniya' of which he is the publisher and printer. Similarly other newspapers also published the said news i.e. 'Dainik Dopahar', 'Nimar Doot' and 'Navbharat'.

       2. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ – against the petitioner as also the respondents including the State of M.P. and claimed a decree against all of them jointly and severally.

       3. The defendants in their written statement contested the plaintiff's claim on several grounds. According to the petitioner he had published the news item giving only the relevant facts as they happened, which are not disputed.

       4. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed several issues out of which issues Nos. 10, 12 and 14 as preliminary issues. Issue No. 10 was regarding mis – joinder of parties, issue No. 14 relates to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and issue No. 12 was whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to aver under what head be was demanding Rs. 50,000/ – from whom. The learned trial Court decided all these issues against the defendants. Hence this revision.

       5. Held: The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has nowhere alleged that the defendants by conspiring together or in collusion published the news in their daily newspapers and in such a situation in absence of specific pleading to that effect merely because several newspapers published a particular news item in their daily edition, such a suit against all the defendants was not maintainable and thus the learned lower Court has committed an error in deciding issue No. 10 against the defendants.

       6. The learned counsel during the course of his arguments did not make any submission regarding the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on Issues Nos. 12 and 14 nor did he challenge the finding on those two Issues.

       7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No.1 relying on the provisions of O.1, Rules 3 and 3 – A of the Code of Civil Procedure submitted that in suits on joint torts, each of the tort – feasors is responsible for the injury sustained by the common act and they can all be sued together. He also submitted that according to the provisions of O.1, Rules 3 and 3 – A CPC there is no bar for joining all the defendants in the present suit arising out of the same Act or transactions of series of acts as common question of law or fact would arise in the present suit as would appear from the pleadings of the parties and in support of his submission he also placed reliance on the decision reported in 1972 MPLJ Note 43.

       8. After hearing the learned counsel and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the provisions of law, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this revision, which deserves to be dismissed for reasons stated hereinafter. The Calcutta authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. The plaintiff has claimed damages against all the defendants on the basis of the news item which has appeared in the newspapers regarding the incident after the death of the plaintiff's wife. According to the plaintiff the publication of such news has hurt his personal as well as his religious feelings and he has also suffered humiliation and defamation and, therefore, the cause of action is the same, the evidence will be the same, common question of law will be the same and, therefore, the plaintiff, in my opinion, has rightly sued all the defendants in which the same relief is sought on the same facts. AIR 1918 Col. 586 distinguished, 1972 MPLJ No. 43 referred to. Revision dismissed.