CS (OS) No. 1359 of 2011

Page 1 of 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (OS) No. 1359 of 2011

Reserved on: July 3, 2013

Decision on: July 31, 2013

NAU NIHAL SINGH RANA

..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. A.K. Behra and

Mr. Gyaneshwar, Advocates.

versus

SUNIL KUMAR

..... Defendant

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUDGMENT

31.07.2013

IA No. 442 of 2012 (under Order VII Rule 11CPC)

1. This is an application by the Defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on

the ground that the plaint does not give rise to any cause of action.

2. The aforementioned suit has been filed by the Plaintiff claiming damages

and compensation in the sum of Rs.25 lakhs along with interst @ 12% per

annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation. According

to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to pay him the aforementioned sum as

damages and compensation for defamation.

3. The Plaintiff states that he was working as Chief Personnel Officer with

Northern Railway from 4^thSeptember 1995 to 31^stOctober 1996. The

2013:DHC:3739

CS (OS) No. 1359 of 2011

Page 2 of 13

Plaintiff states that he had filed a civil suit in this Court in January 2001

against the Ministry of Railways for grant of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for

defamation in connection with a press communique dated 4^thNovember 1996

issued by the Ministry of Railways. When the suit was transferred to the

Court of the learned Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’) on account of revision

of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was re-numbered as CS No. 83 of 2009. The said

suit was dismissed on 26^thJuly 2010 on the ground of limitation. A copy of

the said judgment has been placed on record. The Plaintiff states that he has

filed an appeal being RFA No. 757 of 2010 against the said judgment which

is pending.

4. Para 13 of the judgment dated 26^thJuly 2010 shows that on behalf of the

Defendants in CS No. 83 of 2009 Mr. Sunil Kumar, the Defendant herein,

was examined as the sole witness DW 1. The present suit concerns the

deposition of the Defendant in the said suit. According to the Plaintiff the

answers given by the Defendant during the aforementioned deposition were

totally false, not supported by any material on record or by any documentary

proof and that the statements were “disparaging to the image and reputation

of the Plaintiff and as result is also causing immense mental agony and

mental harassment to the Plaintiff.” In particular, the Plaintiff refers to the

answers given by the Defendant during his cross-examination on 9^thand 23^rd

August 2005. In the course of his cross-examination on 9^thAugust 2005, the

Defendant was asked about the complaint filed by Mrs. Kuljit Kaur on 4^th

October 1996 to the Railway Minister after which she was suspended from

duty on 23^rdSeptember 1996 and had been issued a charge sheet on 24^th

September 1996 for dereliction of duties. That charge sheet was issued by the

2013:DHC:3739

CS (OS) No. 1359 of 2011

Page 3 of 13

Plaintiff. She had accused the Plaintiff of subjecting her to sexual

harassment. During his cross-examination the Defendant appears to have

volunteered that “the records suggest that there seems to be some case

pertaining to the past period with regard to sexual harassment in which matter

was taken to police but since I have never dealt with those cases, and I am

not in a position to give detail thereof. I have not brought the record

pertaining to such old cases. I am not sure as to whether any lady member

had signed the aforesaid resolutions against the Plaintiff. I do not know the

names of ladies who had made complaints as aforesaid other than Ms. Kuljit

Kaur”. He further volunteered that “on the basis of my memory I can say

that these cases pertains to some maid servants. It is correct that name of Mr.

Rana was mentioned in the periodicals of Indian Railways Promotee Officers

Federations submitted by other officers as mentioned by me in para 4 of my

affidavit.” In his deposition on 23^rdAugust