A plaintiff must substantiate claims of defamation with specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm, which cannot be based merely on general assertions or unverified statements.

1. This is an appeal under S.96 of the CPC from the judgment, dated 28.01.2013 delivered in T.S. 27 of 2005 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Agartala. The appellant instituted the suit and as such, hereinafter, the appellant would be referred to as the plaintiff. The suit was instituted for realizing the damages suffered by the plaintiff for publication of news item in the defendants - newspaper namely ' Dainik Sambad' .

2. On a reading of the plaint, it appears that the said newspaper had published some reports imputing the conduct of the petitioner in its several issues from 29.04.2005 to 14.06.2005 without any foundation but with full of defamatory and derogatory comments for tarnishing the image and reputation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff has assessed the damage at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) and sought for a decree for realizing the said amount. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that after successfully serving the Government of Tripura as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the PCCF, in short, he retired on superannuation of 30.04.2005. The plaintiff has given a short list of his achievements and awards that he was conferred on.

3. The plaintiff had introduced, according to him, various projects and good practices for development of forest in Tripura, for which the State Government had appreciated his service and recognized his contribution to the Forest and Environmental Areas. After his retirement, in the said newspaper, some defamatory materials were published denigrating him in the estimation of the public. In the news item published on 29.04.2005 under caption ' Bana Daptarer Vidayi Kartar Biruddhe Kotitaker Kelenkerir Abhiyog' (allegation of scam of crores of rupees against the retiring departmental Chief of Forest Department). The plaintiff has asserted that the said report was based on unfounded allegations. Moreover, the presentation of the said news item was made in a deplorable language. He started receiving telephone calls from various quarters, but they were not named in the plaint. The callers are very important persons whom the plaintiff in whose estimation the plaintiffs - reputation might have fallen down did not recognize. In reaction to the said news item, the plaintiff had sent a rejoinder to the said newspaper and that rejoinder was published in a brief form. The said newspaper continued to publish such defamatory and derogatory allegations against the petitioner on succeeding days viz. 30.4.2005, 01.05.2005, 11.05.2005, 01.06.2005, 04.06.3005, 06.06.2005 and 14.06.2005. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were under obligation to verify the contents before those were published. Since, the allegations were unfounded, no such attempt was made by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Consequent thereupon, publication of those news items, the plaintiff served a notice stating that the news as published in the defendants - newspaper was full of unverified, unfounded and defamatory materials. The plaintiff had stated that the said newspaper published a rejoinder apologetically. The allegations those were broadly made in the said newspaper may briefly be summarized as so made in the plaint :

' (a) The plaintiff as P. C . .F. encouraged illegal extractions of forest produce to benefit a group of contractors.

(b) Even though, collection of the stone boulders from reserve forest is not permitted except in accordance with the approval of the C entral Government. But the plaintiff as P. . .F. allowed permits to a number of persons. As a result, boulders worth of Rs.10.00 crores were extracted and car