J U D G M E N T

This appeal seeks to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.01.2017, passed in Civ DJ No.610191/2016, by the learned Additional District Judge-08 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby, a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of alleged Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed damages, filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondent-

defendant has been rejected.

2. The facts of the instant case indicate that the appellant-plaintiff had instituted a Civil Suit against the respondent-defendant, seeking damages due to defamation, stemming from the filing of alleged malicious pleadings before the Office of the Registrar of Societies.

3. The plaint was initially rejected by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”]. However, upon an appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff, this Court in RFA 257 of 2011, remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for a decision on merits.

4. Upon examination of the instant case, it is evident that both the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant are members of the same Society, namely the Swatantra Cooperative House Building Society, which is registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.

5. There appears to be a dispute concerning the management of the Society. The appellant-plaintiff had initiated legal proceedings on 06.05.2005 before the Registrar of Societies under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 [“Act of 2003”]. The said complaint primarily delineated grievances against the respondent- defendant and other office-bearers, specifically regarding the issuance of notices for meetings of the managing committee. The appellant's grievances are rooted in the allegations of being marginalized as a committee member for various reasons, alongside concerns raised about the financial expenditures of the Society.

6. In the proceedings initiated by the appellant-plaintiff before the Registrar, the respondent-defendant submitted a reply containing Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed certain averments which, according to the appellant-plaintiff, are defamatory in nature.

7. The Trial Court, in paragraph no.22 of the impugned judgment and decree has reproduced the alleged defamatory statements in respective pleadings. Paragraph no.22 of the impugned judgment and decree, reads as under:-

“22.In the instant case, the plaintiff is aggrieved from the reply filed by the society and adopted by the defendant before the Registrar of cooperative society in the petition no. 472/DR/ARB/05-06/10 titled as "D.V. Singh vs. Dr. R.C. Mangla &ors". Ex PW-2/2 and also the reply filed by the defendant in another case bearing no. 3258/DR/ARB/06/07 titled as "Paresh Nath&ors. vs. V.M. Trehan and others", Ex.PW2/3. It is pertinent to reproduce herein the allegations made against the plaintiff in Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3 as under: -

A. Allegations in Ex.PW2/2 :

''the aim of the plaintiff since the inception of the society is to use it as instrument in grabbing the land of the society so as to enrich himself and deprive the Society and its members from its valuable amenities in the shape' of the park etc.".

B. Allegations in Ex.PW2/3:

"the plaintiff had been habitual fault finder and had been dragging the society to all kind of disputes and litigation by filing false and vexatious complaint and petitions. The history of the society will clearly show that Mr. D.V. Singh had been filing complaints against the society since 1979 and onwards till date. He had never cooperated in the affairs of the society and he has been creating problems and difficulties in the smooth functioning of the society".”

8. Upon considering the aforesaid statements, framing the issues and recording the evidence, the Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the Civil Suit mainly on two grounds, viz:-

(i) The proceedings before the Registrar of