THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3831 OF 2017

ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A.No.299 of 2015 in O.S.No.159 of 2014 dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

I.A.No.299 of 2015 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 C.P.C to reject the plaint at the threshold, on the ground that there was no cause of action to claim damages for defamation as a civil wrong, in the absence of publication of defamatory allegations contained in the notice.

The respondent filed counter denying material allegations and raised a specific contention that the petitioner has no locus standi to issue notice, making such defamatory allegations against this respondent and sending notice through his counsel by registered post would attract defamation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

The Trial Court upon hearing argument of both the counsel, dismissed I.A.No.299 of 2015 observing that such question has to be decided after trial only, but not at this stage and held that the plaint cannot be rejected.

Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the present civil revision petition is filed on various grounds, mainly on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and thereby, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. But, the Trial Court did not consider the request in proper perspective and committed an error in dismissing I.A.No.299 of 2015 and prayed to set-aside the same by allowing the civil revision petition by rejecting the plaint.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged before the Court. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to the allegations made in the plaint, the basis for filing suit for damages, on the ground that the defamatory statement made in the legal notice addressed by the petitioner to the respondent’s counsel. The plaint is totally silent as to the publication of such defamatory allegations in the entire plaint, which gives rise to cause of action to claim damages in the suit for the defamation.

The respondents counsel supported the order under challenge in all respects.

Section 499 of I.P.C. defines offence of defamation and it is as follows:

“499. Defamation:- Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1:- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2:- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3:- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4:- No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.”

Though definition of offence of defamation is not applicable to civil wrong, the ingredients of defamation under Section 499 I.P.C can be applied to civil wrongs.

Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 28, defines ’defamatory statement’ as under:

“A defamatory statement is a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimat