Raj Nath Khosla v. Acharya Dr John R Biswas & Ors

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J 3rd September, 2012

$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 3rd September,2012 + IA No.3415/2012 in CS(OS) 268/2011 RAJ NATH KHOSLA ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Adv. versus ACHARYA DR JOHN R BISWAS & ORS ..... Defendants Through Ms. Anjana Masih, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. The present order will decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., 1908, presented by the defendants for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the tort of defamation. 2. The relevant averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint are reproduced as under: The plaintiff is engaged in the business of financial services and is high income tax paying citizen. The defendants are the office bearers of a literature society named Masihi Sahitya Sansthan. The Defendant No. 1 is the Chairman, Defendant No. 2, the Secretary and Defendant No. 3, the Manager of the above named Society. The Society is the absolute owner of the properties bearing flat no. 42 and two separate independent shops no. 42A and 42B under it. The Masihi Sahitya Sansthan, as owner of the property, Flat No. 42, Khan Market, New Delhi, entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.3.1988 with the plaintiff to hand over the said flat to the plaintiff in lieu of certain consideration. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the said flat but dispute arose between the parties with respect to the ownership of the barsati floor i.e. the roof top of the said flat. In January 2010, when plaintiff was carrying out reparation and renovation work on the barsati floor, some officials of the society tried to interfere by making several calls to the police and as a result a PCR van arrived at the premises. However, on inspection, everything was found in place and police rejected the baseless complaint filed by the society. In February 2010, the society with malafide intentions, through its Secretary, who was authorized by the Chairman, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the plaintiff and the same is pending trial before the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The plaintiff also discovered that the defendants had made a false complaint against the plaintiff and also against the ex- officials of the society, to the SHO, Police Station Tughlaq Road, New Delhi alleging connivance and no authority to execute the documents with regard to Flat no. 42 in favour of the plaintiff which was later closed by the Investigation Officer. 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's wrongful statement made in the complaint as well as the civil suit against the plaintiff amounted to defamation. Such comments have brought plaintiff into ridicule and very adversely affected his impeccable reputation. Plaintiff was exposed to ridicule before nearly 1500 of his employees being called an accused of a crime which was patently false. That the slanderous and defamatory statements made by the defendants against the plaintiff were published by way of a complaint to the SHO, Police Station and in the pleadings in the Civil Suit No. 28 of 2010 before the Ld. Civil Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi. 4. Seeking rejection of the plaint through an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that on a bare reading of the plaint along with the documents which have been relied & filed by the plaintiff demonstrates that the suit is without cause of action, barred by law and thus liable to be rejected. The counsel submitted that the claim of the plaintiff is based upon the facts stated in the complaints made by the defendants to the lawful authorities regarding their grievances against the plaintiff. The complaints filed by the defendants on behalf of the society are still subjudice and it has not been held by any court that the allegations made by the complainant through its officials were false. The counsel submitt