TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Defamation claim dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Defendant's statements protected; suit time-barred</h1> <h3>Nau Nihal Singh Rana Versus Sunil Kumar</h3> The court allowed the Defendant's application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as the Plaintiff's claim for defamation failed to disclose ... - Issues Involved:1. Rejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 CPC.2. Absolute privilege in civil proceedings.3. Limitation period for filing the suit.Summary:Issue 1: Rejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 CPCThe Defendant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it did not give rise to any cause of action. The Plaintiff had filed a suit claiming damages of Rs. 25 lakhs for defamation, based on statements made by the Defendant during a previous civil suit. The Court concluded that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action to support the present suit for libel and defamation against the Defendant. Consequently, the Defendant's application u/r Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the plaint was rejected with costs of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the Plaintiff.Issue 2: Absolute privilege in civil proceedingsThe Defendant argued that statements made by witnesses in civil proceedings are protected by 'absolute privilege' and thus no defamation case can be made out. The Court referred to Section 132 of the Evidence Act and various precedents, including K. Daniel v. T. Hymavathy Amma and Kamalini Manmade v. Union of India, to affirm that the common law rule of absolute privilege applies to civil actions for defamation in India. The Court noted that the statements made by the Defendant were relevant to the context of the previous suit and were made in his official capacity, thus protected by absolute privilege.Issue 3: Limitation period for filing the suitThe Plaintiff contended that a fresh cause of action arose when the trial court pronounced its judgment on 26th July 2010, including the Defendant's statements. The Court, however, held that the limitation period began when the statements were made during cross-examination in 2005. Since the suit was filed more than five years after the alleged defamatory statements, it was barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that the Defendant's statements were not relied upon to decide the previous case, and no fresh cause of action arose at the time of judgment pronouncement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
