IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

R.S.A.NO.5794/2013

BETWEEN :

VISHNU MANJAYYA DEVADIGA,

AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC; PRESIDENT,

NAGARIKA HORATA SAMITHI, BHATKAL,

R/O BENGRE, ULMAN, TQ; BHATKAL,

DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI DATTATRAYA J. NAIK, ADV.)

AND :

GANAPATHI R.BHAT,

AGE : 41 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN,

R/O : GENERAL HOSPITAL, TQ: BHATKAL,

DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581320.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI & SRI JOSHNA P.DHANAWE,

ADVTS.)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

AGAINST

THE

JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

19.07.2013

PASSED

IN

R.A.NO.25/2007

BY

THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HONAVAR AND THE JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

24.10.2007

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.28/2001

BY

THE

CIVIL

JUDGE

(JR.DN.),

BHATKAL

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

: JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the

defendant-appellant under Section 100 of the

Code

of

Civil

Procedure

challenging

the

judgment and decree dated 19.07.2013 passed

in R.A.No.25/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge,

Honavar, which confirmed the judgment and

decree

dated

24.10.2007

passed

in

O.S.No.28.2001 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),

Bhatkal

except

compensation

amount

and

interest there on, the Trial Court has awarded

compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest at

the rate of 18% per annum, but this quantum

is modified by the Fist Appellate Court granting

compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent-plaintiff is working as an

Electrician in the Government Hospital, Bhatkal

3

and has acquired reputation in the Society. The

appellant-defendant

was

the

president

of

“Nagarika Horata Samiti, Bhatkal” and the

appellant-defendant has published an article in

“Prajavani” daily Kannada news paper under

the caption of “Dallaligala Virudda Kramakke

Aagraha”. As per the respondent-plaintiff, the

report is false and defaming the respondent-

plaintiff and therefore the respondent-plaintiff

has suffered with mental agony and faced

humiliation and insult in the Society, because

of

publishing

of

false

report.

Hence,

the

respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for claiming

damages

on

account

of

false

article

is

published defaming the respondent-plaintiff by

the appellant-defendant.

3.

Before the Trial Court, the respondent-

plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and

another

witness

as

PW.2

and

got

marked

4

documents as Exs.P.1 to P.17 & P.17(a). On the

other

hand,

the

appellant-defendant

has

examined himself as DW.1 and another witness

as DW.2. But not produced any documentary

evidence.

4.

The Trial Court based on the evidence

on

record,

has

decreed

the

suit

of

the

respondent-plaintiff and directed the appellant-

defendant

to

pay

sum

of

Rs.15,000/-

with

interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the

respondent-plaintiff towards damages for having

published false article in the news paper. The

reasons assigned by the Trial Court that, the

appellant-defendant

has

not

produced

any

evidence to substantiate his allegation, which is

published in the news paper. Furthermore, in the

news paper, the Editor of the news paper had

published a clarification that, the said news

published

inadvertently

and

under

mistaken

impression,

therefore he has apologized

for

5

having published the defamatory article in the

name of respondent-plaintiff and further in the

news paper, it is published that, the defamatory

article published in the news paper is having

contained false things. Hence he has apologized

and the same is published in the news paper,

therefore having come to the conclusion that, the

Trial Court h