Dr. K.A. Paul vs K. Natwar Singh & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 3130 Del

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

              CS(OS) 1161/2007 & IAs 10647, 13220 & 8848/2007

       DR. K.A. PAUL                                         ..... Plaintiff
                                Through Dr. Surat Singh with
                                Ms. Pratibha Chopra &
                                Mr. Sudhanshu Palo, Advocates.

                       versus

       K. NATWAR SINGH & ORS.                ..... Defendants
                    Through Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Advocate
                    with Mr. Samrat K. Nigam and
                    Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocates for D-1.
                    Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for D-2.
                    Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Addl. Solicitor General of
                    India with Ms. Sweta Kakkad and
                    Mr. Varun Pathak, Advocate for D-3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

       1.Whether reporters of the local newspapers
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     Yes
       2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?             Yes
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Yes
         Digest ?

                                 JUDGMENT

12.08.2009

IA Nos. 10647/2007, 13220/2007 & 8848/2007

1. These applications in Civil Suit, CS(OS) No.1161 of 2007 are by the

Defendants. Defendants 1 and 3 have filed IA Nos. 10647 of 2007 and

13220 of 2007 respectively under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Defendant No.2

has filed IA No.8848 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The prayer in

the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is for dismissal of the plaint.

The prayer in the application IA 8848 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10(2)

CPC is for discharging the summons issued to Defendant No.2.

2. The prayer in the suit is for the issuance of summons to the Defendants

for defaming the Plaintiff and awarding exemplary compensation of not less

than Rs.1 crore for the loss of reputation caused to the Plaintiff and the

Plaintiff's charitable organizations.

3. According to the Plaintiff, he is a global peacemaker. In May 2005 he

organised a global peace summit espoused the cause of India to be a

permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. He claims that he

launched a Global Peace Initiative and arranged to go on a global peace tour

to five countries along with the former Prime Minister Mr. Deve Gowda.

According to the Plaintiff, arrangements were made for the tour using the

Plaintiff's own private aircraft. It is stated that on 3rd July 2005, Defendant

No.1, Mr. K. Natwar Singh who was then the Union Minister of External

Affairs, telephoned the former Prime Minister and made the following

defamatory remarks about the Plaintiff thus lowering the Plaintiff's prestige

and esteem in the eyes of not only the former Prime Minister but the leaders

of five other countries:-

"What an honourable person like you is doing with this evangelist who in the name of Global Peace Mission is using you for his own interest. Please do not dishonour yourself by associating yourself with him".

4. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 again called the former

Prime Minister on 4th July 2005 advising him not to associate himself with

the peace mission and repeated his low opinion of the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff claims that the defamatory remarks not only caused a loss of

reputation to him in the leaders of the five countries but also a financial

loss.

5. In para 8 of the Plaintiff it is stated that the peace mission of five

countries was to take place between 5th and 15th July 2005.Those leaders of

the countries thereafter did not show any willingness to meet the Plaintiff

when he visited their countries later. He came to know that that this was on

account of the intervention by the External Affairs Ministry which made

calls to the leaders of the five countries on 3rd and 4th July 2005 persuading

them not to entertain the peace delegation. The alleged monetary loss

suffered by the Plaintiff and his organization as a result of the above calls

are set out in para 9 of the plaint.

6. The Plaintiff then states that he had planned the inaugural of a center

named - Gandhi - Martin King - Paul Center in Hyderabad on 26th and 27th

May 2007. This was to be dedicated to the promotion of peace and non-

violence. An invitation was sent to Mr. Y. Rajasekhara Reddy, the Chief

Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Defendant No.2. It is stated that a copy of the

invitation was also sent to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Hugo Chavez, the

President of Venezuela. According to the Plaintiff, when these facts came to

the notice of the Defendant No.3 Mr. Pranab Mukharjee he is supposed to

have called Defendant No.2 and reprimanded him thus:-

"How come you are inviting President of a country without prior permission of foreign country? Are you doing the job of a Chief Minister or Prime Minister? And who is this joker Dr. Paul who is inviting President of this country and that country? Disassociate yourself from Dr. Paul if you want to have good

relationship with the top leadership. Remember George Bush is our friend and this joker is against Bush. Stop all your support to this fellow. I am advising you in your own interest".

7. It is stated that thereafter Defendant No.2 disassociated himself from the

Center. According to the Plaintiff, the defamatory remarks made by

Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.2 on 16th March 2007 also resulted in the

loss of the reputation and income to the Plaintiff. In America alone,

donations to the tune of US$ 100 million did not materialize. According to

the Plaintiff, this in turn resulted in thousands of widows and orphans

suffering because the charitable institutions run by the Plaintiff were

deprived of funds.

8. The cause of action set out in the plaint reads as under:-

"That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 3rd

- 4th July, 2005 when defendant No.1 called the Former Prime Minister of India with Mr. Deve Gowda and made defamatory remarks about the plaintiff and made defamatory remarks about the plaintiff and persuaded Mr.Deve Gowda not to associate with the plaintiff or his organization. The cause of action further arose in the month of July 2005 when top leaders of five countries of the world where plaintiff earlier received red carpet welcome was not welcomed at all and the very leaders who were so warm and cordial to him started shunning and avoiding him. The cause of action also arose on 18th July 2005 when US Administrations ordered the grounding of plaintiff's aircraft causing grave loss to the plaintiff. The cause of action further arose when on 02.02.2007 when defendant No.1 confessed, in presence of several respected leaders

including Former US Presidential Candidate and Member of the US Congress Mr.Walter Fauntroy, that the defendant No.1 cancelled the global peace mission on the instructions of his senior party leaders. The cause of action further arose on 16th March 2007 when defendant No.3 made defamatory remarks about plaintiff to defendant No.2. It further arose on 26th May 2007 when the inauguration of Mahatma Gandhi - Martin Luther King - Paul Center could not be inaugurated because of defamatory actions and remarks of defendants 2 & 3."

9. The submissions of Dr. Surat Singh, the learned counsel appearing for

the Plaintiff, Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing

for Defendant No.1, Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel

appearing for Defendant No.2 and Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, the Additional

Solicitor General of India appearing for Defendant No.3, have been

considered. Dr. Surat Singh has also submitted a written note of his

submissions.

10. Mr. Nigam submits that the allegation by the Plaintiff as far as

Defendant No.1 is concerned, is that he made the defamatory remarks to the

former Prime Minister on 3rd July 2005. The suit was filed only on 22nd

June 2007. In terms of Article 76 of the Schedule I to the Limitation Act,

1963 (`Act'), a suit claiming damages for slander had to be filed within one

year of the event. He submits that present suit is accordingly barred by

limitation.

11. Mr. Nigam further points out that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of

parties. The suit is based on two sets of allegedly defamatory remarks. The

first made on 3rd July 2005 by the Defendant No.1 and the second made on

16th March 2007 by the Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.2. It is submitted

that these constitute separate causes of action and are not part of the same

act or transaction or series of acts. Therefore neither can the Defendant

No.1 on the one hand and Defendants 2 and 3 on the other, be made parties

to the same suit, but even the separate causes of action cannot be combined

in one suit.

12. Supplementing the above submissions, Mr. Chandhiok, the learned

ASG points out that thus as far as Defendants 2 and 3 are concerned, they

were holders of public offices at the time the suit was filed. Defendant No.2

was at that time and continues to be the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

Defendant No.3 was and is a Minister in the Union Cabinet. No suit could

have been instituted against either of them until the expiration of two

months after a notice in writing was delivered or left at the office of these

Defendants in terms of Section 80(1) CPC. Relying on the decision in State

of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneer Builders, A.P. AIR 2007 SC 113, it is

submitted that the suit vis-à-vis the Defendants 2 and 3 must fail. Mr.

Reddy, appearing for the Defendant No.2, adopts the above submissions.

13. In reply Dr. Surat Singh refers to para 16 of the plaint and submits that

the Plaintiff first came to know about the alleged defamatory remarks made

on 3rd July 2005 only on 2nd February 2007 when Defendant No.1 himself

volunteered information about his having made such defamatory remarks

against the Plaintiff. He therefore submits that the period of limitation

would begin to run only from that date. As regards the mis-joinder of

parties, it is submitted that even if separate suits were brought against

Defendants 2 and 3 that would in any event give rise to common questions

of law or facts. Therefore, in terms of Order II Rule 3(1), the present suit is

maintainable as such. It is submitted that in any event the alleged mis-

joinder of causes of action cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As regards the prior notice under Section

80(1) CPC, it is submitted that the plaintiff had along with his plaint also

filed an application, IA No. 7147 of 2007 seeking exemption from serving

notice under Section 80(1) CPC on account of urgency. Inasmuch as the

said application was pending, the suit should not be dismissed against the

Defendants 2 and 3.

14. The above submissions have been considered. As regards the limitation

for filing a suit claiming damages on account of the alleged defamatory

statement made by the Defendant No.1 on 3rd July 2005, a reading of the

plaint shows that the Plaintiff knew of the said defamatory statement around

the time it was made. In para 8 of the plaint, it is stated that "On enquiry,

plaintiff came to know that such cold and indifferent response of these

leaders was because of intervention by foreign ministry of India where on

July 3rd & 4th, 2005 foreign ministry office made calls to the leaders of these

five countries to persuade them not to receive and entertain the peace

delegation, comprising 25 members of parliament from all major political

parties of India led by Former Prime Minister of India Mr. Deve Gowda

and the plaintiff". Thereafter in para 9, the Plaintiff has set out about the

events that transpired soon thereafter, which according to him got cancelled

and resulted in the lowering of his prestige. These events are of 6th and 7th

July 2005 and 18th July 2005. Then in para 19, it is stated "Being a peace

loving person, the plaintiff took the above behavior of the defendant No.1

and even the resultant loss to his reputation and income in a serene manner

and continued strenuously to work towards the promotion of global peace in

general and promoting India's moral leadership in the world in particular".

15. What is significant is that the Plaintiff nowhere states that he came to

know of the alleged defamatory statement made by the Defendant No.1

only on 2nd July 2007. Even in the cause of action paragraph extracted

hereinbefore he only states that "cause of action further arose when on

02.02.2007 when defendant No.1 confessed, in presence of several

respected leaders........." Even here the Plaintiff does not state that he

knew of the making of the alleged defamatory statement of 3rd July 2005 for

the first time only on 2nd July 2007. A collective reading of all the above

paragraphs belies the contention of the Plaintiff that he had no knowledge

of the defamatory statement of 3rd July 2005 prior to 2nd July 2007. This

appears to be a desperate attempt to somehow save limitation for making a

claim against Defendant No. 1. This attempt should fail. This Court is

therefore satisfied that as far as the Defendant No. 1 is concerned, the suit is

barred by limitation, since it has not been filed within one year of the date

of making of the alleged defamatory statement by Defendant No.1 in terms

of Article 76 of Schedule I of the Act.

16. A reading of the plaint also shows that the incident of 16 th March 2007

when the Defendant No.3 is alleged to have made defamatory remarks

about the Plaintiff to Defendant No.2 indeed constitutes a separate cause of

action. The attempt at joining two separate causes of action in one suit must

fail in terms of Order II Rule 3 CPC. Under Order I Rule 3 CPC the

Defendant No.1 and Defendants 2 to 3 can be joined in the same suit only if

the relief is in respect of the same act or transaction or series of acts of

transactions. In the considered view of the Court, the alleged defamatory

statement made by the Defendant No.1 on 3rd July 2005 and the alleged

defamatory statement made by Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.2 on 16th

March 2007 did not arise out of the same act of transactions or series of acts

of transactions. Consequently the suit is also bad for mis-joinder of

Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit against Defendant No.1.

17. The suit against Defendants 2 and 3 should fail for yet another reason.

Section 80(1) CPC makes it mandatory for prior notice to be issued before

instituting a suit against any holder of a public office in his official

capacity. Both Defendants 2 and 3 were at the relevant point of time

holders of public offices. They continued to hold public offices at the time

of filing the suit. Defendant No.2 is the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh

and Defendant No.3 is the Minister in the Union Cabinet. Therefore, in

terms of Section 80(1) CPC, prior notice was mandatory. The attempt by

the Plaintiff by way of IA No.7147 of 2007 to overcome this by pleading

urgency must fail. The grounds set out in the said application are entirely

without merit. (see State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pioneer Builders, A.P. AIR

2007 SC 113)

18. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the suit also is not maintainable

against Defendants 2 and 3.

19. Consequently the two applications, IA Nos. 10647 and 13220 of 2007

are accordingly allowed. For the aforementioned reasons, the summons

issued to Defendant No. 2 stands discharged. IA No. 8848 of 2007 is

accordingly allowed.

CS(OS) No. 1161/2007 & IA Nos. 7146-47/2007, 13221/2007

20. In view of the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 10647, 13220 and 8848 of

2007, the suit is dismissed with costs. The other pending applications stand

dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

AUGUST 12, 2009 ak