IN THE COURT OF SH.

SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

CS DJ No.220/2023

CNR No.DLST01-003775-2023

Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Rukam Pal Singh,
R/o House No.333, A-4,
Street No.35, Chattarpur Enclave,
Phase-2, Maidan Garhi Road,
New Delhi-110074. ….Plaintiff

VERSUS

Sonia
D/o Sh. Sudesh Kumar Verma
R/o House No.89,
Chattrpur Enclave, Phase-I,
Maidan Garhi Road,
New Delhi 110074 . …..Defendant

Date of Institution : 20.04.2023

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.25,00,000/- AS DAMAGES FOR

CS No.220/2023 page 1 of 40
JUDGMENT
1. That the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery

of Rs. 25 Lacs as damages for defamation, malicious and false

litigations along with pendent lite and future interest at 18% per

annum. The brief facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant

got married on 30.06.2001 according to Hindu rites and

ceremonies.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that with the passage of time the

behaviour of the defendant towards the plaintiff and his other

family members became cruel and aggressive. It is further

stated by the plaintiff that the defendant left the matrimonial

house on 10.07.2009 with the minor daughter of the parties

herein after creating an atrocious environment, and began to

file frivolous and false litigations by putting defamatory

allegations against the plaintiff and his other family members

before various Courts and authorities. It has also been

submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant did not allow the

plaintiff to meet with their daughter and deprived him of her

CS No.220/2023 page 2 of 40
 love and affection.

3. The plaintiff has further submitted that the defendant used to

chat with her friends and while chatting used abusive/

defamatory language against the plaintiff and her mother

specifically through her email accounts (Exb. PW-l/7 & Exb.

PW-l/8 i.e. email chats).

4. Thereafter, as submitted, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking

dissolution of marriage vide HMA no. 336/2011, before Saket

Court, South District on the ground of cruelty under section 13

(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. It is further submitted

that the petition U/s 13 of The HMA Act, 1955 was decreed by

the Court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Principal Judge, Family

Court, South, vide its order dated 01.12.2021. A copy of the

same is marked as PW-l/5. Further, a certified copy of the same

was also produced during evidence proceedings.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant continued to nag

the aged and ill maternal uncle Mr. M.G.S. Yadav (the business

provider of Altima Systems, the employer of the plaintiff) by

CS No.220/2023 page 3 of 40
 sending emails (Exb. PW-l/9 Colly) with false allegations and

defamatory remarks, which caused immense pain to the

plaintiff and the plaintiff had gone into depression, and his

health became worse day by day due to constant psychological

stress.

6. It is submitted that the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated

05.08.2020 Ex PW-1/11 Colly. (not denied by the defendant) to

the defendant thereby calling her to restrain herself and to

tender a written apology for her derogatory act/allegation but

the defendant further in continuation of her malafide intention

to defame the plaintiff sent a reply Exb. PW1/12 (not denied)

dated 21.08.2020 to the legal notice through her advocate Fauzi

Sayeed to the official email of Sh. M.G.S. Yadav (Exb.

PWl/13), which caused immense psychological pain to the

plaintiff.

7. It is submitted by the plaintiff that due to constant harassment

and aforesaid acts of the defendant, the plaintiff had to undergo

major surgery on March 2022. The medical treatment and

expenses documents (approx. total Rs.6 lakhs expenses for

CS No.220/2023 page 4 of 40
 surgery and post-surgery expenses) are exhibited as EX

PW-l/10(OSR).

8. Further, as pleaded, after the divorce decree was passed, the

defendant intentionally, just to malign the plaintiff, sent an mail

to Mr. M.G.S. Yadav, the maternal uncle (mama) of the

plaintiff dated 16.06.2022 through her daughter's email ID i.e.

[email protected]. (Exb. PW-l/14) on his official

email ID despite the fact that Mr. M.G.S. Yadav has/had no

concern with the family affairs of the plaintiff and the

defendant, since he has been living in USA for last many

decades. The plaintiff has also submitted that it is worth

mentioning the maternal uncle of the plaintiff was a chronic

patient of kidney failure and had undergone kidney transplant

in the year of 2021 and he was bedridden at that time. The

email has been admitted by the defendant in her cross

examination as well as her written statement. It is also

submitted by the plaintiff that the daughter of the plaintiff

examined herself as PW-2 in Mt Case. No. 215/2011. In her

cross examination the daughter of the parties herein admits that

CS No.220/2023 page 5 of 40
 Email ID i.e. [email protected] is her email ID,

however she denied that she sent any email dated 16.06.2022

(Exb. PW-l/10) to Mr. M.G.S. Yadav (at page 2 of her cross

examination). The daughter of the parties Ms Ishita further

stated that ‘whatever stated in my affidavit Exb. PW-2/A is told

to me by my mother’. A certified copy of the cross examination

of Ishita is annexed as Annexure-P1 along with the written

submissions.

9. It is stated that the defendant has taken a single plea in her

defence that the present suit is time barred as well as the suit of

the plaintiff is pre-mature. No other defence has been pleaded

by the defendant effectively. It has also been submitted that the

defendant took two contrary pleas in her written statement. As

pleaded further, the defendant has contended that the email chat

on the basis of which the plaintiff has claimed the relief in the

present suit pertains to the year 2010 to 2020 itself which are

electronic records and the plaintiff has not filed the requisite

certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was filed

by the plaintiff along with his evidence affidavit. The same was

CS No.220/2023 page 6 of 40
 duly exhibited as Exb. PW-1/15.

10. It is further submitted that the counsel for the defendant duly

cross examined PW-l at length and a total 75 question were put

by the counsel for the defendant. As alleged, in the entire cross

examination of PW-l, the counsel of the defendant focused only

on the income of the plaintiff and the alleged intimate

relationship of one Smita/ Praydarshani Srivastava with the

plaintiff. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the said cross

examination is further defamatory in nature, and the plaintiff

has reserved his right for the same. It is also submitted that the

defendant remains silent in respect of Exhibits PW-l/7 (Colly)

& PW-l/8 (Colly) the same being email chats between the

defendant ([email protected]) and her friend ie Ms

Anjali Awasthi ([email protected]), one Praveen

([email protected]), Ms Payal Chitra

([email protected]) and aquarianboy

([email protected]), in most vulgar and defamatory

language/ contents against the plaintiff, his mother, sister-in-

law and other relatives. The email chats have been duly

CS No.220/2023 page 7 of 40
 exhibited supported with a 65B Indian Evidence Act certificate.

Further, as submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant has also

admitted the Exb. PW-l/9 (Colly) the defamatory emails sent to

Mr. MGS Yadav dated 06.06.2020, 13.06.2020 and

20.07.2020.

11. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the DW-1 Sonia was cross

examined at length by the counsel for the plaintiff to bring the

truth on record. About 46 questions were put to the defendant

in the cross examination. The plaintiff has further submitted

that the defendant admits she had/has been using several Email

IDs/addresses i.e. [email protected], vermasonia

[email protected], [email protected] &

[email protected]. It has also been submitted that the

falsehood of the defendant has been exposed on several facts

and averments more particularly in respect of the defendant

deposing under oath that she was staying at matrimonial home

i.e. in reply to question no. 43 to 46, where the defendant has

stated that the defendant was staying at her matrimonial home

in the year 2016 when she filed the Case of DV Act, 2005. It

CS No.220/2023 page 8 of 40
 has been further pressed by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff

that the address mentioned by the defendant as her matrimonial

home is of her father Sh. S. K. Verma which is evidently

contrary to the fact. The plaintiff has also submitted that the

defendant claims the date of separation as 10.07.2009, which

has been mentioned in HMA petition no. 336/2011, more

specifically mentioned at Para 7 of the Judgement dated

01.12.2021 (Exb. PW-1/5), vide MT. No. 215/2011 in para no.

8 & DV petition No. 12754/2017.

12. It has further been submitted that the testimony of the DW-l is

contemptuous, and false on several points. It has been

submitted that the defendant declined and avoided to answer

the question no. 2, 4 11, 16, 19, 40 & 41 of the cross

examination.

13. It is also been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff

that the defendant Sonia has changed her own statement time

and again. It has been pointed out that DW-1 Sonia, in her

cross examination in HMA petition No.336/2011 dated

12.02.2020 states that the photographs filed by the plaintiff in

CS No.220/2023 page 9 of 40
 his HMA petition no. 336/2011 and Ex. PW-l/2 are morphed.

However, in the present proceedings, as alleged, the defendant

admits all the photographs except one photo at page no. 51

which marked as Mark-A. The plaintiff submits that it is worth

mentioning that in the said photograph, DW-l Sonia has

declined to identify the plaintiff who was standing amongst the

others.

14. It is further submitted that in cross examination in HMA

petition No. 336/2011 conducted on 12.02.2020 the DW-1

states that Ms. Anjali Awasthi & Rishi Singh were/are her

friends and Mr. Deepak was/is his brother. On the contrary the

defendant states in DV petition no. 12754/2017 that Mr.

Deepak might be some Vendor, which reads as follows

“I do not know who is Deepak Thakur. There are some entries

reflected in the name of Deepak Thakur in EX CW1/R-1. He

might be some vendor.”

15. However, the defendant no.1 further twisted her version in the

present proceeding and has stated that she does not know

CS No.220/2023 page 10 of 40
 Anjali Awasthi, Praveen, Mukesh, Payal Chitra and

Aquarianboy and/or Mr. Deepak. The defendant no.1 further

states that Mr. Deepak was the boyfriend of the sister of

plaintiff (while answering the Q. no. 14 & 15) which is a

defamatory statement of the DWl. A certified copy of the cross

examination of DW-l Sonia in HMA & DV petition are

annexed with the written submissions as Annexure-P2 & P3.

16. This Court is inclined to observe that the defendant has stated

that she doesn’t know Mr Deepak, and in the same breath, the

defendant has stated that he is / was a friend of the plaintiff’s

sister, thereby establishing the fact that defendant did know of

the said Mr Deepak.

17. Further, as submitted, DW-1 again denied her emails IDs i.e.

[email protected] from which, as alleged, the

defendant no.1 used to chat with her friends, however, in reply

to Q.No.6 of the cross examination the defendant answered that

the ‘aforesaid email ID is only being used for court

formalities’, however, the defendant used to chat with this

email ID amongst her friends. As alleged, the defendant used to

CS No.220/2023 page 11 of 40
 plan how to implicate the plaintiff and his family members into

the false criminal cases by using abusive and defamatory

language (Ex. PW-1/7 Colly at Page no. 59 to 70) which cannot

be narrated herein as being extremely vulgar. Further, as

submitted, the said chats evidently reflect the conspiracy to

exploit the plaintiff. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has

categorically pointed out that the defendant shared her future

conspiracy of not allowing the plaintiff to meet his minor

daughter (Exb. PW-1/7 Colly at page no. 72). The defendant

also used to talk to her friends namely Payal Chitra &

Aquarianboy whilst using vulgar and abusive language against

the plaintiff and his other family members (Exb. PW-l/8 Colly

at page 79 to 83). The defendant has not put any question(s)

qua the said documents i.e. Exb PW-1/7 Colly & Exb. PW-1/8

Colly, hence the plaintiff pleads that the presumption goes in

favour of the plaintiff being admitted by the defendant hence

the said documents/email chats have been proved by the

plaintiff.

18. It is also submitted that the defendant has admitted Ex. PW-l/9

CS No.220/2023 page 12 of 40
 Colly ie emails sent by the defendant to the maternal uncle

(Mama) of the plaintiff Mr. M.G.S. Yadav on his official email

ID [email protected], more particularly at page no. 132.

Further, the defendant continued to use derogatory remarks in

the said conversation, and stated that "you all get Sunil married

to Prayadarshini Yadav (Smita Srivastava) ....... , Me and my

daughter's soul will always curse you all.”.

19. It is further submitted that due to the aforesaid act and action,

the plaintiff suffered from deep depression and psychological

pain. Further the plaintiff could not concentrate on the work as

assigned to him by his employer as well as due to the pending

false litigations and medical treatment. As submitted, on

account of the mentioned developments, the plaintiff had to

take frequent leaves from his work every month, which

adversely affected and damaged his career and the plaintiff

could not grow financially, hence the plaintiff suffered huge

financial and physical loss due to which the plaintiff had to

undergo surgery. A copy of medical documents filed by the

plaintiff is Ex. PW-l/10(Colly.). It is also the case of the

CS No.220/2023 page 13 of 40
 plaintiff that his doctor advised the plaintiff to consult with

Psychiatrist for his mental health (at page no. 96 of Ex.

PW-l/10 Colly.). Since the defendant used to call the relatives

and friends of the plaintiff with her premeditated mind and

malafides to poison their thought process against the plaintiff,

as alleged, the same resulted into boycotting and ostracizing the

plaintiff from the social arena by the all relatives and friends

who were earlier harmonious and had respect towards the

plaintiff.

20. As a result of the aforementioned, the said intentional and

deliberate acts and conduct of the defendant adversely affected

the financial, physical and mental health of the plaintiff. The

plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs.25 Lacs which is

includes the medical expenses incurred, along with damages for

defamation in the present suit. It has also been submitted that

the actual damages are neither assessable. It is also submitted

that the plaintiff has suffered immensely at the hands of the

defendant, which is a matter of record.

21. The plaintiff has also pressed upon another extract of the cross

CS No.220/2023 page 14 of 40
 examination from case no. HMA 336/2011 titled as Sunil

Kumar Vs Sonia Yadav dated 12.02.2020 at page 13 onwards

of the written submissions which reads as follows:

“It is correct that email id [email protected] has

been mentioned in my income affidavit filed by me in 125Crpc

Case. Vol: the said email id was generated by the petitioner. I

have never used the said email id

([email protected]). It is wrong to suggest that I

have given wrong information in my income affidavit filed in

125CrPC case. At the time of opening of savings account

HDFC Bank at GK-1, I have given the above mentioned

mobile no. ie 9811665430 and the email id

([email protected]) used by family members. It is

wrong to suggest that email id [email protected]

was given by me at the time of opening savings bank account.”

“Anjali Awasthi, Rishi Singh are my friends. Payal Chitra,

Praveen Iyer are not my friends. Deepak is my brother. I never

chat on email with Anjali Awasthi. Vol: Used to talk to her on

landline telephone no. from office landline no.”

CS No.220/2023 page 15 of 40
 SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT:

22. PER CONTRA, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that

the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, malicious and is

nothing but an afterthought to harass the defendant. The

defendant filed her written statement, following which the

issues were framed as:-

(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/-from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP.

(ii)If issue no. (i) is proved in affirmative, whether plaintiff is

entitled for interest thereon, if so, at what rate and period? OPP

(iii)Whether the suit is barred by limitation as explained in the

preliminary objection no.1 of the written statement? OPD

23. The defendant submits that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by

limitation as the suit of the plaintiff is based on the libel. As per

the Article 75 of the limitation Act a suit for defamation

seeking compensation is required to be filed within one year

from the date of publication of the libel. As submitted the

plaintiff filed the present suit on the basis of chats for the year

CS No.220/2023 page 16 of 40
 of 2010 and certain mails dated 06.06.2020, 13.06.2020,

20.07.2020.

24. The defendant has placed on record judgments wherein it has

been held that the language of the Article 75 of the Schedule to

the Limitation Act is clear and unambiguous that the period of

limitation would start from the date of publication and it has to

be interpreted according to the rule of Literal Construction. The

defendant has placed reliance upon NNS Rana Vs UOI & Ors

RFA /757/2010, Delhi High Court, Khawar Butt Vs. Asif Nazir

Mir & Ors. CS(OS)/290/2010 decided by Delhi High Court on

07.11.2013., Delhi High Court on 21.12.2015, Indresh Dhiman

Vs. Hindustan Times & Ors., OMP No. 388/2017 decided by

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 07.03.2019.

25. The defendant has also submitted that it is a settled legal

proposition law of limitation may harshly affect a particular

party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute

so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of

limitation on equitable grounds. Further, as submitted, even the

last email dated 16.06.2022 as is being relied upon by the

CS No.220/2023 page 17 of 40
 plaintiff is firstly, not sent by the defendant secondly, even if

the contents are read as it is, then it nowhere attracts

defamation. It is also submitted that a perusal of the email

dated 16.06.2022 sent by the daughter of the plaintiff, as

alleged by the defendant, was only related to her maintenance

and as stated earlier, does not attract the defamation. It is stated

by the defendant that Ishita ie the daughter of the parties herein

was not called as a witness to prove the email dated

16.06.2022.

26. It is also submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff in his

reply to cross examination at question no. 69 "Did you ever

default toward the payment of interim maintenance which was

to be paid to your daughter Ishita in the year 2022?" which was

objected by the counsel for the plaintiff That in reply to the said

question no. 69 the plaintiff admitted that there may be default

towards payment of interim maintenance but the plaintiff does

not remember.

27. Further, in the cross examination held on 12.02.2024 the

plaintiff admitted that he had the knowledge about the said

CS No.220/2023 page 18 of 40
 email within few days from the date of the alleged mail.

28. It is also the case of the defendant that on filing of complaint by

the defendant under section 12 of PWDV Act 2005, against the

plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the resent suit as a counter blast. It is

submitted that the plaintiff has also asked for compensation for

malicious and false litigation but the complaint of the defendant

under DV Act is yet to be decided since the said complaint is

yet to be decided, thus the present suit being immature is liable

to be dismissed.

29. It is also stated by the defendant that as stated above, the suit of

the plaintiff is based on the alleged chats of year 2010 and

emails of year 2020, the suit is clearly barred by law of

limitation and it is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. The

defendant submits that the plaintiff is in a habit of levelling

false and frivolous allegations against the defendant without

any proof. It is also the case of the defendant that she was

forced to leave her matrimonial home due to ill-treatment and

harassment caused by the plaintiff and his family members.

The defendant submits that the medical treatment documents

CS No.220/2023 page 19 of 40
 annexed by the plaintiff along with the plaint nowhere

mentions the "cause" or/and "opinion" of the doctor qua the

plaintiff suffering constant mental and physical pain.

30. The defendant submits that there is no loss of work, reputation

to the plaintiff due to alleged emails by the defendant. It has

also been submitted that the plaintiff has failed to disclose as to

on what basis the damages amounting to Rs.25 Lac have been

quantified. The contention of the plaintiff that there was loss of

work is false and the lie has been established by his own

answer in plaintiff’s cross examination to question No. 28

wherein he stated that he worked with M/s Altima Systems

from 1998-2023 In the capacity of MD and authorized

signatory.

31. That when at question No. 45 of the cross examination of

plaintiff, it was asked that “Can you tell us since when Smt

Smita Srivastava is a tenant at your mother's house?”, the

plaintiff replied since 2019-2020. The plaintiff further stated

that he knew Smt. Smita Srivastva. It has also been pointed out

by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that while at question No.

CS No.220/2023 page 20 of 40
 61 the plaintiff was asked “Is it correct to say that you did not

know Smita Srivastava prior to her becoming a tenant in the

aforesaid property?”, the plaintiff replied that "it is correct".

32. The defendant asked the plaintiff in question No.73: ''You filed

certain documents/bank accounts statement in Domestic

violence case No.12754/2017 in the court of Ld. MM (Mahila

Court) South District, Saket Court in which it is shown that you

had transferred certain amount in favour of Ms. Smita

Srivastava. Is it correct?" the same was objected to by the

counsel for the plaintiff as the document was not on record. But

the plaintiff answered that "I do no remember, I might have."

33. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that any party in a

cross examination can submit any document for confrontation

even if it is not on record. It is further submitted that in Ct.

Cases No. 12754/2017 under Domestic Violence Act Titled as

Mrs. Sonia Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors, the plaintiff himself had

filed the affidavit of income and expenditure where in the

plaintiff filed his statement of bank account where there are

several entries of credit and debit between the plaintiff and

CS No.220/2023 page 21 of 40
 Smt. Smita Srivastava since November 2016 onwards which

shows that the plaintiff knew said Smt. Smita Srivastava much

prior to 2019. It is pertinent to observe the defendant has not

filed the said alleged documents, either on the record of the suit

or along with the written submissions.

34. That the defendant submits that even otherwise, the alleged e-

mails addressed to maternal uncle of the plaintiff were to only

inform the addressee regarding discontinuation of maintenance

amount which was to be paid by the plaintiff to her daughter

Ishita. The defendant states that in her cross examination she

has denied the contents of mall dated 13.06.2020 but even

assuming, without admitting the said email, the same nowhere

states that the plaintiff got married. The word is "you all get

Sunil Married to Priyadarshini Yadav (Smita Srivastava) and

hence the same does not amount to defamation.

HEARD & PERUSED

OBSERVATIONS

35. The parties herein through their respective Counsels have

CS No.220/2023 page 22 of 40
 advanced arguments at length and have also filed detailed

written submissions in support of their case.

36. The present case is arising out of the issues and familial discord

pertaining to the marriage between the parties.

37. The present matter pertains to the issue of defamation. The

plaintiff ie the husband of the defendant herein has pleaded

damages amounting to Rs 25 Lac plus pendente lite and future

interest at 18% per annum, on account of defamation including

libel.

38. It is pertinent to understand the legislative and juridical intent

behind the issue pertaining to Civil Defamation.

Essentials of Defamation:

39. There are three main essentials of Defamation viz.,

The statement must be published:

40. Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to

lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of

society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid

CS No.220/2023 page 23 of 40
 that person.

41. The standard to be applied is that of a layman/ right minded

citizen. A man of fair average intelligence, and not that of a

special class of persons whose values are not shared or

approved by the fair minded members of the society generally.

42. In Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy AIR 2006 Delhi

300 an inquiry commission was setup for examining the facts

and circumstances relating to assassination of late Shri Rajiv

Gandhi. The defendant, at a press conference alleged that the

then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had prior information that

LTTE cadre would make an assassination bid on the life of

Rajiv Gandhi. The plaintiff was engaged as a Sr. Counsel to the

then CM of TN. In discharge of his professional duties, the

plaintiff cross examined the defendant. During the proceeding,

the defendant in the written conclusive submission, alleged that

the plaintiff had been receiving money from LTTE, a banned

organization. The statement by defendant was ex facie

defamatory.

CS No.220/2023 page 24 of 40
 43. In Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai 1970 CriLJ 286 It has been held

that the imputation by the defendant that the plaintiff, a widow

of 45 year age, is a keep of the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs,

is not a mere vulgar abuse but a definite imputation upon her

chastity and thus constitutes defamation.

The statement must refer to the plaintiff:

44. If the person to whom the statement was published could

reasonably infer that the statement referred to the plaintiff, the

defendant is nevertheless liable.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Harsh Mendiratta v.

Maharaj Singh 95 (2002) DLT 78; said that an action for

defamation was maintainable only by the person who was

defamed and not by his friends or relatives.

Defamation must be published:

45. Publication means making the defamatory matter known to

some person other than the person defamed and unless that is

done, no civil action for defamation lies.

46. In the case of Mahender Ram v. Harnandan Prasad AIR 1958

CS No.220/2023 page 25 of 40
 Pat 445 it was said when a defamatory letter is written in urdu

to the plaintiff and he doesn’t know Urdu, he asks a third

person to read it, it is not defamation unless it was proved that

at the time of writing letter defendant knew that urdu was not

known to the plaintiff.

DEFENCES AVAILABLE:

47. There are three defences of defamation namely Justification or

truth: Under criminal law, merely proving that the statement

was true is no defence but in civil law merely showing truth is

a good defence. A statement is not defamatory if it is both true

and made or published for the public good. Whether the

statement is in the public interest is a question of fact. In

Chaman Lal v. State AIR 1970 SC 1372 the Supreme Court

emphasised certain factors in determining whether an

imputation was made in good faith—namely, (i) the

circumstances under which the imputation was made, (ii)

whether there was any malice, (iii) whether the accused

inquired into the facts before making the imputation; (iv)

whether the accused acted with sufficient care and caution; and

CS No.220/2023 page 26 of 40
 (v) whether there is a preponderance of probability that the

accused acted in good faith.

48. In the landmark case of Alexander v. N.E. Rly (1865) 6 B&S

340, the plaintiff had been convicted of riding a train from

Leeds without having purchased a valid ticket. The penalty was

a fine and a period of imprisonment of fourteen days if he

defaulted on the fine. However, following the conviction, the

defendant published a notice that the plaintiff was convicted

and issued a fine or three weeks imprisonment if in default. The

plaintiff alleged that the defendant had committed libel by

describing the penalty issued to him inaccurately. The

defendants argued that the conviction was described with

substantial and sufficient accuracy and the words so far as they

differed in their literal meaning from the words of the

conviction were not libellous. Judgment was given in favour of

the defendants. The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff was

sentenced to pay a sum of money and, in default of payment, to

be imprisoned. Blackburn J; noted that the substance of the

libel was true but the question was whether what was stated

CS No.220/2023 page 27 of 40
 inaccurately was the gist of the libel.

Fair Comment-

49. The comment must be an expression of opinion rather than

assertion of fact.

50. The comment must be fair i.e. without malice. The matter

commented upon must be of public interest.

Privilege

51. There are certain occasions when the law recognizes the right

to freedom of speech outweighs the plaintiffs right to

reputation, the law treats those occasions as a privileged

communication. These are further of two types;-

Absolute privilege- No action lies for the defamatory statement

even though the statement is false or made maliciously. It

applies to Parliamentary Privilege, Judicial proceeding and

State communication.

52. Qualified privilege- It is necessary that the statement must have

been without malice. The defendant has to prove that statement

was made on a privileged occasion fairly. The Court must take

CS No.220/2023 page 28 of 40
 the following things into consideration while deciding the

question of compensation in a defamatory publication:

The conduct of the plaintiff.

His position and standing in society.

The nature of libel.

The absence or refusal of any retraction or apology of libel.

The whole conduct of the defendant from the date of

publication of libel to the date of the decree.

53. In Gorantla Venkateshwarlu v. B. Demudu, AIR 2003 AP 251,

the respondent was a bank officer and was sent on deputation to

work as the Managing Director of Co-operative society. The

appellant, the President of Society sent a complaint to the Bank

alleging that the respondent had illicit connections with ladies

which affected the image of the society during his tenure as the

Managing Director. The respondent sent a reply denying the

allegations made against him. The branch manager of the bank

conducted an inquiry and found out that the allegations were

false and were made only with a view to see that the respondent

CS No.220/2023 page 29 of 40
 is not deputed to inspect the affairs of the society. The

respondent filed a suit of defamation claiming damages of Rs.

20,000. The court held that the allegations were per

se defamatory and the appellant was liable to pay damages.

54. The law on defamation serves the purpose of protecting people

from having their reputation injured resulting from false

statements made against them. However, it is still in

accordance with the right to freedom of speech and expression,

as people can make true statements and give their opinions.

This area of law seeks to protect a person’s reputation from

being hurt by preventing unfair speech. The apex court has

stated in various cases that the ambit of freedom of speech and

expression is “sacrosanct” but is not “absolute”. It also said that

the right to life under Art. 21 includes the right to reputation of

a person and it cannot be violated at the cost of the freedom of

speech of another.

REASONING:

55. From the record of the case, it is evident that the defendant has

CS No.220/2023 page 30 of 40
 indulged in acts amounting to defamation by way of Libel. The

copy of email/ chats filed by the plaintiff have been duly

proved, supported by way of an electronic evidence affidavit,

and remain unrebutted. The defendant has not challenged and

or taken any steps to challenge the authenticity of the said

emails.

56. It is also observed that the defendant has chosen to taken

contradictory stands as per her convenience. It is observed that

at Question no. 5 of the cross examination the defendant has

stated that she only has only used one email ID till date ie

[email protected], where as in the very next question the

defendant has admitted that she had mentioned another email

ID in her income affidavit in the month of November 2017

being [email protected], filed in the DV case as

filed between the present parties which is duly mentioned

above.

57. It is also observed that the defendant mentioned another email

ID in her income affidavit in the year 2019

[email protected]. Further, the defendant has

CS No.220/2023 page 31 of 40
 admitted to using the said email id.

58. It is also observed that while in one case the defendant has

admitted knowing her alleged friends ie Anjali Awasthi,

Praveen, Mukesh, Payal Chitra, Aquarianboy and Deepak,

during her cross examination in the HMA Petition no.

336/2011, the defendant, in the present case has stated that she

has no friends, and has never had any friends, while being cross

examined under oath.

59. It is also pertinent to observe that the defendant has admitted

that she had sent the emails (EX PW-1/9 Colly.) dated

06.06.2020, 13.06.2020, 20.07.2020 to the one MGS Yadav ie

the maternal uncle of the plaintiff, while the defendant has

denied the said emails in her affidavit of admission and denial

of documents, which forms the foundation of the present

matter.

60. It is also observed that the defendant has admitted the legal

notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant herein dated

05.08.2020 Ex PW-1/11 on account of derogatory comments/

CS No.220/2023 page 32 of 40
 defamation. It is further observed that the defendants counsel,

under her instructions, replied to the above mentioned legal

notice by sending a reply through counsel dated 21.08.2020

(Ex PW-1/12) and a copy of the same was sent to the MGS

Yadav i.e. Maternal Uncle of the plaintiff.

61. It is also observed that the defendant has admitted the

document EX PW-1/13, being an email titled as REPLY TO

NOTICE OF SUNIL KUMAR BY SONIA, which was sent by

the defendant through her counsel ([email protected] )

to the maternal uncle of the plaintiff MGS Yadav on his email

ID [email protected]. Further, the defendant has been kept

in CC in the email ([email protected]). It has also been

admitted by the defendant that the plaintiff was not marked as a

recipient in the said email.

62. The plaintiff has filed a certified copy of the cross examination

of the daughter of the plaintiff and the defendant Ms. Ishita

dated 22.03.2023, from the case having details as M No.

215/2011 titled as Sonia Vs Sunil Kumar. The plaintiff has

pressed upon certain relevant portions of the cross examination

CS No.220/2023 page 33 of 40
 starting from page 8, the relevant portion is reproduced as

follows:

“My email ID us [email protected]. At this stage,

hard copy of email dated 16.06.2022 sent by the email id

[email protected] to

[email protected]/netzoom.com. After seen the said copy

of email the witness reply ‘I have not sent the said email, same

is Mark-PW2/X1.”

63. The plaintiff has also pressed upon another extract of the cross

examination at page 10 of the written submissions which reads

as follows;

“ It is correct my mother has told me about the income and

property of my father I do not have any personal knowledge. It

is correct that whatever stated in my affidavit EX PW2/A is

told to me by my mother.”

64. In light of the above mentioned cross examination, a question

was put to the defendant regarding an email dated 16.06.2022

wherein it has been alleged and implied that the email was by

CS No.220/2023 page 34 of 40
 the defendant while using the email ID of her daughter Ms.

Ishita.

65. It is also observed that the defendant has stated under oath that

she had left her matrimonial home in the year 2009 while,

while in the same breath, the defendant has stated under cross

examination that the defendant filed a case against the plaintiff

herein under PWDV Act 2005 in the year 2016 while she was

staying at her matrimonial home. It is also observed that the

defendant has mentioned the address of her matrimonial home

as D/o Sh SK Verma 89 Phase-1, Sai Complex, Chattarpur

New Delhi-110074. Further, in the very next line of the cross

examination, the defendant has stated that the above mentioned

address is of her parents.

66. It is observed that the defendant has not pleaded any defence

other the plea of the suit being barred by limitation. The

plaintiff has submitted that the present case is based on a

continuing and a subsisting cause of action, which last arose on

16.06.2022. As per the schedule of the Limitation act, 1963, the

limitation period for filing a case for damages pertaining to

CS No.220/2023 page 35 of 40
 Libel is 1 year from the date of cause of action. The present suit

was filed on and around 10.04.2023. Further, earlier pleaded

causes of action have also merged with the cause of action

dated 16.06.2022.

67. For the sake of argument, even if the plea of the defendant is to

be appreciated, then, it is to be observed that the cause of action

pertaining to the emails EX PW-1/9 Colly., last arose on

20.07.2020. Further, as per the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,

(2022) 3 SCC 117, 119, the limitation period is to be calculated

from 01.03.2022, in light of the then Covid-19 pandemic,

which would evidently expire on 28.02.2023. In such a case,

there would have been a delay of 40 days in filing the present

suit.

68. Further, the Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgements

that the Courts are to adopt a pragmatic justice oriented

approach, and not reject cases/ suits on hyper-technical

grounds.

CS No.220/2023 page 36 of 40
 69. Based on the arguments and submissions of the parties, the

delay, if any, can be conveniently condoned whilst placing

reliance upon the judgement of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphulli Co-

operative bank Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal 9198/2019, where it

has been held that; “ 63. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

does not speak of any application. The Section enables the

Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the

appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had

sufficient cause for not making the application and/or

preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it

is the general practice to make a formal application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the

Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the

inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the

Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is

no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to

condone delay, in the absence of a formal application.”

70. In light of the above reasoning, the judgements cited by the

CS No.220/2023 page 37 of 40
 defendant do not come to their aid as the present suit is within

the period of limitation.

DECISION:

71. Based on the pleadings between the parties herein, this Court

had framed the below mentioned issues:

(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/-from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP

(ii)If issue no. (i) is proved in affirmative, whether plaintiff is

entitled for interest thereon, if so, at what rate and period? OPP

(iii)Whether the suit is barred by limitation as explained in the

preliminary objection no.1 of the written statement? OPD

72. This Court finds merits in the submissions of the plaintiff, and

is inclined to decide the present suit in favour of the plaintiff.

73. Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant. The Court finds that the acts of the defendant have

caused injury to the plaintiff, which have hampered his

professional growth. The defendant is directed to pay damages

CS No.220/2023 page 38 of 40
 of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.15 Lac) to the plaintiff on the ground of

defamation, namely libel, and the damage caused to the

plaintiff being a direct consequence of the action of the

defendant.

74. Issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant to the extent the plaintiff being entitled to a rate of

interest at 9% per annum simple interest, from the date of filing

of the present suit till the realization of the decreed amount.

75. Issue no.3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the

plaintiff, on account of the aforementioned facts, submissions,

observations and reasoning.

Relief.

76. In view of above discussion, suit is decreed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant is directed to

pay damages of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.15 Lac) to the plaintiff on

the ground of defamation, namely libel, and the damage caused

to the plaintiff being a direct consequence of the action of the

defendant.

CS No.220/2023 page 39 of 40
 77. Plaintiff is also held entitled to simple interest @ 9% per

annum, from the date of filing of the present suit till the

realization of the decreed amount.

78. Cost is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.

79. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly, upon payment of deficit

court fees, if any.

80. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open

(Sunil Beniwal)
District Judge-06(South),
Saket Courts, New Delhi

CS No.220/2023 page 40 of 40