Absolute privilege in civil testimony barred defamation claim, with limitation running from the statement date.

Statements made by a witness during cross-examination in civil judicial proceedings, when relevant to the matter in inquiry, were treated as protected by absolute privilege and incapable of founding a later civil defamation claim. The plaint was also found not to disclose a sustainable cause of action on its own averments, because the alleged statements were made in the earlier suit and no fresh cause arose from the later judgment. Limitation was held to run from the date of the statements, not from pronouncement of judgment, so the suit was barred and the plaint liable to rejection with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for defamation on the basis of statements made by a witness in prior civil proceedings; (ii) whether such statements were protected by absolute privilege in civil proceedings; and (iii) whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for defamation on the basis of statements made by a witness in prior civil proceedings.

Analysis: The plaint had to be tested on its own averments and the accompanying documents for the limited purpose of Order VII Rule 11. The statements complained of were made in cross-examination in an earlier civil suit and were not shown to have been relied upon to decide that suit. The alleged fresh cause of action on pronouncement of judgment was not accepted.

Conclusion: The plaint did not disclose a sustainable cause of action.

Issue (ii): whether such statements were protected by absolute privilege in civil proceedings.

Analysis: Section 132 of the Evidence Act was held to concern compelled answers and self-incrimination, and not to displace the common law rule protecting statements made by witnesses in civil judicial proceedings. The Court held that statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, when relevant to the matter in inquiry, enjoy absolute privilege and do not support a civil action for defamation.

Conclusion: The statements were protected by absolute privilege and no civil defamation action lay on that basis.

Issue (iii): whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged defamatory statements were made during cross-examination in 2005, and the later pronouncement of judgment in 2010 did not create a fresh cause of action. Limitation was held to commence from the date of the statements, not from the date of judgment.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The plaint was liable to be rejected, and the defendant succeeded in the application for rejection of plaint with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements made by a witness in the course of civil judicial proceedings, if relevant to the matter in inquiry, are protected by absolute privilege and cannot form the basis of a later civil suit for defamation; the cause of action arises, if at all, when the statement is made.

---