Absolute privilege for affidavits in quasi-judicial proceedings barred a defamation claim and supported rejection of the plaint.

A defamation suit based on notices and affidavits was held time-barred on the plaint averments alone, because the impugned publications were stated to have been made in 2007 and the suit was filed in March 2009, beyond the one-year limitation period for libel. The court also treated affidavits filed before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings, since the Registrar exercised adjudicatory powers under the cooperative societies statute. Those statements were therefore protected by absolute privilege and could not sustain a defamation action. The plaint was rejected as barred by law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for defamation, founded on allegedly defamatory notices and affidavits, was barred by limitation and liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the defamatory statements contained in the affidavits filed before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies were protected by absolute privilege so as to bar the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for defamation, founded on allegedly defamatory notices and affidavits, was barred by limitation and liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaint itself showed that the notices were published in September and October 2007 and the suit was instituted in March 2009. Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a one-year period for compensation for libel, and Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that once time has begun to run, subsequent disability does not stop it. The alleged defamatory matter in the affidavits was treated as a reiteration of earlier allegations first made in February 2008, and the suit was still filed beyond one year from that date. On the plaint averments alone, the claim relating to these statements was time-barred.

Conclusion: The limitation objection succeeded; the suit was barred by limitation in relation to the impugned publications.

Issue (ii): Whether the defamatory statements contained in the affidavits filed before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies were protected by absolute privilege so as to bar the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The rule of absolute privilege applies to statements made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, including pleadings and affidavits, when made before a body exercising adjudicatory functions. The statutory scheme under Sections 60, 61 and 74 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 showed that the Registrar exercises dispute-resolution and adjudicatory powers in cooperative society disputes. The proceedings before the Registrar were therefore treated as quasi-judicial in nature, and statements made in affidavits filed in such proceedings attracted absolute privilege and could not found an action for defamation.

Conclusion: The affidavits were held to be absolutely privileged and not actionable in defamation.

Final Conclusion: The plaint was rejected as barred by law, and the application for rejection of the plaint was allowed, bringing the suit to an end.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements made in affidavits filed in proceedings before a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial functions are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a defamation action.

---