THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.272 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 07.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.139 of 2012 by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the defendant has filed a private complaint vide C.C.No.2031 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad alleging that the documents marked as Exs.P6 to P9 in the said case were submitted before the Senior Police Inspector and Rationing Officer at Mumbai and that they are defamatory and are liable for prosecution under Section 500 of IPC. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant along with Rajini Chandra, Padmini Chandra and Prem Chand have filed a partition suit vide O.S.No.31 of 2003 and O.S.No.24 of 2005, which were pending on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and that the defendant herein has claimed partition of the suit schedule properties in the said suits contending that they are the children of Mahesh Chand who is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The said Mahesh Chand who is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.31 of 2003 filed written statement by mentioning that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 2 to 12 are the children born to him through his wives, that the plaintiffs are the illegitimate children and that they have no right to maintain the suit for partition. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is defendant No.4 and his elder brother Mahesh Chand is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.32 of 2003 and the same was allotted a new number vide O.S.No.24 of 2005. He further averred that Mr.Mahesh Chand has filed his written statement in the said suit contending that mother of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 namely Smt.Shantha Bai is not the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and further denied that the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1 and that in the said suit, an issue was also framed as to whether their mother Shanta Bai is the legally wedded wife of 1^st defendant and whether the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the legitimate children of the 1^st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is managing the Companies as a Director including M/s.Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt.Ltd., situated at Mumbai and as the defendant attempted to enter the premises of said M/s.Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt.Ltd., by creating nuisance and since the defendant has secured the ration card by using the address of M/s.Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt.Ltd., a police report was given at Mumbai and a complaint was also given to the Rationing Officer, Mumbai. The plaintiff was constrained to file SC No.3645 of 2006 in Mumbai Court against Poonam Chand, Prem Chand, Rajini Chandra and Padmini Chandra and notices were ordered in the said case and the defendant received notice at Hyderabad. It is his further case that Mr.S.K.Patil has submitted Ex.P6 complaint petition dated 20.07.2006 to the Senior Police Inspector, N.M.Joshi Police Station, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai when the defendant attempted criminal trespass into the premises of M/s.Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt.Ltd., and tried to enter the Director’s room and created nuisance. Similarly, Ex.P7 is also a report given to the Senior Police Inspector at Mumbai when the defendant repeated the said offence. It is his further case that Ex.P8 is the report submitted by Mr.Moti Chand to Rationing Officer, Mumbai for cancellation of Ration Card dated 02.12.1994 procured in the name of defendant by showing the address of M/s.Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt.Ltd., informing t