Kamlesh Sherawat & Anr v. Lalji Patel & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 25, 2016 Bs/gsr..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 25th May, 2016 + RFA 305/2016 & CMs No.17613/2016 (for stay), 17615/2016 (for exemption for filing decree sheet) & 17616/2016 (for condonation of 41 days delay in re-filing the appeal) KAMLESH SHERAWAT & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Raghav Kapoor, Adv. Versus LALJI PATEL & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 8th January, 2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CS No.240/2014 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for "recovery of damages/compensation and litigation expenses on account of defamation" in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs, consequent to rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, on the ground of the relief claimed therein being barred by time. 2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 10th May, 2016, when the counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs appearing on the second call sought adjournment contending that he had as annexure to the memorandum of appeal filed a copy of the plaint as originally filed and not the amended plaint. 3. On the next date of hearing i.e. 12th May, 2016, though the counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the copy of the amended plaint but had not filed certain other documents. Owing thereto, the matter was posted for today and the Trial Court record requisitioned. 4. The learned ADJ has rejected the plaint holding that the suit had been filed on the basis of erroneous impression of the appellants/plaintiffs of the period of limitation under the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing of such a suit being of three years, when as per Articles 75 & 76 of the said Schedule, the period of limitation was of one year only. 5. It was/is the contention of the counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs before this Court that the order of the learned ADJ is erroneous, as it failed to consider the break-up of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs as given in the amended plaint. 6. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in para 51 of the amended plaint has inter alia stated as under: "51. That the Defendants have caused huge damages to the reputation, prestige and character of the Petitioner's and the damage / compensation can be compensated in terms of money, however the petitioner's are claiming compensation to the damages caused in the form of "DEFEMATION" to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- which is in the denomination of:- ELECTRICITY/WATER CHARGES AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL OF RS.90,000/- (Rs.42,000/- including arrears of electricity/water bills pending for past two years i.e. 2010 to 2012) + (Rs.48,000/- for maintenance charges for past two years including maintenance of two booster pumps, two overhead tanks, sanitary expenses, plumber expenses, pipe fitting, repairs etc.) HARASSMENT PHYSICAL & MENTAL FACED BY BOTH THE PETITIONERS SINCE AUG. 2012 TILL TODAY AMOUNTING TO RS.2,00,000/- (Including daily police station visits, losses of businesses, loss of Mental peace, unnecessary harassment to both the Petitioners by filling frivolous litigation by the Defendants, harassment to both the Petitioners when defendants filed Civil Appeal which was dismissed, physical harassment when kalandara was prepared because of the Defendants, transportation expenses for both the Petitioners travelling from MAHIPALPUR to DWARKA, litigation expenses). DEFAMATION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,10,000/- (Defaming the reputation of the Petitioners in the society where Petitioner No.2 is living since his childhood by calling the Police Officials daily at the residence of the Petitioner's & also stating & addressing the Petitioner No.1 as not a good woman as she is into gambling and other illegal activities). Hence, making a Total of Rs.5,00,000/- in totality altogether, with an up to date interest @ 24% Per Annum." 7. On a reading of the plaint, it is quite clear