- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajinder Kaur Petitioner v. Darshan Singh Sahi
Factual and Procedural Background
This civil revision petition challenges the order dated 8.5.2014, whereby the lower court dismissed the defendant-petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, Darshan Singh Sahi, seeking recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 5 crores for alleged defamation and mental harassment caused by the defendant through false allegations. The allegations arose from a complaint filed by the defendant on 20.8.2010 to the DSP, Narwana, accusing the plaintiff of document forgery related to an electric connection. The plaintiff claimed that defamatory letters were also sent to his close friends in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The defendant’s application for dismissal of the suit was based on grounds of limitation, insufficient court fee, and lack of jurisdiction, all of which were rejected by the lower court. The present petition reiterates those grounds challenging the dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the suit filed for defamation is barred by limitation.
- Whether the plaint is deficient in court fee.
- Whether the lower court at Mohali has jurisdiction to try the suit.
- Whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the lower court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner-Defendant's Arguments
- The suit is barred by limitation as defamation claims must be filed within one year.
- The plaint is deficient in court fee since the claimed compensation was Rs. 5 crores.
- The court lacks jurisdiction as the suit was filed in Mohali.
- Only the averments in the plaint should be considered for the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, without considering the defendant’s written statement.
Respondent-Plaintiff's Arguments
- The suit is within limitation as the cause of action includes defamatory letters sent after the initial complaint date.
- The court fee has been deposited on a reduced claim of Rs. 50 lacs, and the actual court fee will be paid upon final adjudication of damages.
- The Mohali courts have jurisdiction as defamatory letters were received by the plaintiff’s friends residing in Mohali.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 605 (Supreme Court) | Only averments in the plaint to be considered for Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, not written statement. | Court applied this principle to limit inquiry to plaint averments for assessing the dismissal application. |
| Dr. Mangla Dogra v. Anil Kumar Malhotra, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 976 (P&H) | Limitation period for defamation claims is one year. | Referenced to establish limitation period; court analyzed cause of action timing in context. |
| Shavinder Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 36000 of 2012 (O&M) | Support for limitation and procedural aspects in defamation suits. | Used to support limitation and procedural arguments presented by the parties. |
| Panjab Singh v. Daler Singh, CRM-M No. 36258 of 2012 | Similar to above, relevant to limitation and procedural questions in defamation suits. | Referenced to buttress limitation and jurisdictional aspects. |
| S. Ajit Singh Kohar v. Shashi Kant, CR No. 5638 of 2014 | Requisite court fee payable on the sum adjudicated as damages, not necessarily at initial stage. | Applied to hold that court fee can be paid on final damages amount, not on tentative claim. |
| Sri Ratnavaramaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 | Interpretation of Rule 11[c] of Order VII CPC regarding court fee and plaint rejection. | Relied upon to clarify court fee payment timing and dismissal of plaint. |
| Arjan Motors v. Girdhara Singh, 1978 PLJ 36 (Full Bench) | Clarification on applicability of court fee rules in plaint rejection scenarios. | Used to distinguish applicability of certain precedents on court fee. |
| Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (1) R.C.R(Civil) 464 | Not applicable to facts; cited to explain non-applicability. | Rejected as not relevant to the present case facts. |
| P.K Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, 2010 (1) R.C.R(Civil) 129 | Not applicable to facts; cited to explain non-applicability. | Rejected as not relevant to the present case facts. |
| Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, 2003 AIR 248 (Punjab) | In defamation suits, when exact relief value is uncertain, minimal court fee may be acceptable. | Applied to justify acceptance of nominal court fee at initial stage. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by considering only the averments in the plaint, as mandated by Supreme Court precedent. It found no merit in the defendant’s claims that the suit was barred by limitation, noting that the cause of action was not confined to the date of the initial complaint but extended to subsequent defamatory letters received by the plaintiff’s acquaintances. Regarding court fee, the court accepted that the fee payable should be based on the final amount of damages adjudicated, not on the tentative claim of Rs. 5 crores, and referenced relevant case law to support this approach. On jurisdiction, the court held that since defamatory letters were sent to and received by persons in Mohali, the Mohali courts had jurisdiction. The court concluded that the grounds raised by the defendant lacked factual and legal merit and that the authorities cited by the petitioner were distinguishable and inapplicable.
Holding and Implications
The court affirmed the impugned order dated 8.5.2014 of the lower court dismissing the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff for defamation and damages proceeds. The decision confirms that limitation for defamation claims must consider the entire cause of action, that court fee is payable on the final damages awarded rather than the initial claim, and that jurisdiction is proper where defamatory communications are received. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies existing legal principles to the facts at hand and resolves the procedural challenge against the plaint.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
This civil revision petition is directed against order dated 8.5.2014 (Annexure P-1) whereby application of the defendant, petitioner herein, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the lower court.
2. In her application (Annexure P-3), the petitioner-defendant had requested for rejection of the plaint claiming that the suit was barred by limitation, was deficient in court fee and there was lack of jurisdiction.
3. The lower court did not find any merit in the application of the petitioner-defendant and dismissed the same vide the impugned order.
4. In a suit filed by plaintiff Darshan Singh Sahi, respondent herein, against the petitioner-defendant, recovery of damages by way of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crores has been sought for allegedly levelling false allegations against the respondent-plaintiff intentionally and for causing defamation and mental harassment to him.
5. Genesis of the suit is found in a complaint dated 20.8.2010 filed by the defendant to DSP, Narwana which was forwarded to the SHO, Police Station, Narwana on 2.9.2010 wherein specific allegations against the plaintiff had been made that he was expert in forging documents and had forged signatures of the defendant to get the electric connection, which allegations as per claim of the plaintiff, were wrong. The plaintiff had also alleged that not only this complaint to the police but even multiple letters were sent to the close friends of the plaintiff defaming him with a purpose to dwarf him in his reputation. The plaintiff had also named few of his close friends to whom defamatory letters alleging him to be a fraudester and furnishing details further thereof, had been sent by the defendant. It was also disclosed that such defamatory letters had been sent to the friends of the plaintiff residing in SAS Nagar, Mohali.
6. Contesting the claim of the defendant in her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit, it was averred by the respondent-plaintiff that reducing the amount of compensation for damages to Rs. 50 lacs, requisite court fee had been deposited and it was further claimed that the suit was within limitation as also jurisdiction of the Mohali courts was there.
7. Asserting all the grounds viz. Limitation, court fee and jurisdiction, this petition again reiterates the claim of the petitioner-defendant. To buttress her claim and to assess merits of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, averments only in the plaint were to be gone into without considering pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement in terms of decision in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 605 (Supreme Court). It is also claimed that averments as mentioned in the plaint, are to be taken as such. Support in this regard has been sought from Dr. Mangla Dogra v. Anil Kumar Malhotra 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 976 (P&H). It is claimed that limitation for a claim of defamation is only one year. Support has been sought from two judgments of this Court in Shavinder Singh v. State of Punjab bearing CRM-M No. 36000 of 2012 (O&M) decided on 25.9.2013 and Panjab Singh v. Daler Singh bearing CRM-M No. 36258 of 2012 decided on 20.9.2013
8. So far as the matter of court fee is concerned, reducing compensation from Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 50 lacs, requisite court fee has already been paid. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has averred that on final adjudication whatsoever amount is awarded as compensation by the court concerned, requisite court fee would be payable as the amount of compensation has been mentioned tentatively only. Support in this regard has been sought from judgment of this Bench in S. Ajit Singh Kohar v. Shashi Kant bearing CR No. 5638 of 2014 decided on 25.8.2014, where in paras 5 and 6, it was observed as under:
5. In a recent judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2013 in Civil Revision No. 7253 of 2013, interpreting Rule 11[c] of Rule VII CPC in identical circumstances relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Ratnavaramaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 and Full Bench decision of this Court in Arjan Motors v. Girdhara Singh, 1978 PLJ 36, while observing that decisions in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (1) R.C.R(Civil) 464 and P.K Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, 2010 (1) R.C.R(Civil) 129 were not applicable to the facts of the case, it has been held that when the trial Court has not come to a conclusion about quantification of damages to be recovered from defendant for defaming the plaintiff, damages could not be assessed by the plaintiff as this determination was to be made by the Court. Further, in Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, 2003 AIR 248 [Punjab], in similar circumstances, in a suit for damages for maligning reputation, it was held that since exact value of the relief to be granted could not be ascertained, affixation of court fee of Rs. 50/- was acceptable.
6. Sequelly, the impugned order is set-aside leaving the petitioner to pay the court fee on the sum to be adjudicated as damages by the lower Court in due course of time, but not at this initial stage, notwithstanding that the petitioner though, leaving the entire matter to the court for adjudication of the quantum of damages, he himself has given the quantum of damages to be Rs. 2.00 Crores.”
9. Since the matter of compensation is yet not final and adjudication is to be made by the lower court, actual court fee payable would thus be determinable only at that point of time.
10. So far as jurisdiction of the Court at Mohali is concerned, when there is definite allegation of the plaintiff that defamatory letters were written by the defendant and were received by his kith and kin and friends at Mohali Courts at Mohali have jurisdiction, is also a question which is foreclosed for the petitioner-defendant.
11. As regards the ground of limitation, no doubt, suit for seeking compensation for defamation is to be filed within one year of arising of cause of action but in this case, cause of action cannot be fixed to the date of filing of complaint (Annexure P-6) by the petitioner-defendant before the DSP, Narwana i.e 20.8.2010 As has already been mentioned, cause of action is being conglomerate of facts, is not to be determined only from averments of the complaint but also is to be considered from defamatory letters which had reached kith and kin and friends of the plaintiff at different points of time and even later than the date of filing of the suit i.e 20.9.2011 Even legal notice (Annexure P-10) was sent to the plaintiff on 11.10.2010 averring therein the components of cause of action in the suit but the defendant did not budge even then.
12. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed above, when all the matters have been discussed in detail, there is neither any factual nor legal infirmity in the impugned order and the authorities cited by the counsel for the defendant, petitioner herein, facts of the case in hand being entirely different, do not help the cause of the petitioner, this revision petition has no merit.
13. Sequelly, affirming the impugned order dated 8.5.2014 (Annexure P-1) of the lower court, this revision petition is dismissed.
Alert