Delhi High Court
Prem Peyara vs Kamla Sinha Alias Kamala Prem & Anr on 12 October, 2012
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.10.2012
+ I.A. No.5107/2012 in CS (OS) No.2263/2011
PREM PEYARA ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Mithun K.S. Rathore, Adv.
versus
KAMLA SINHA ALIAS KAMALA PREM & ANR ..... Defendants
Through Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Adv. with
Mr. Satyadarshi Kunal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. By this order, I propose to decide the application filed by the
defendants under Order VII, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC on the
ground of limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.21 lac along with
interest @ 12% per annum towards damages and compensation on
defamatory grounds against the defendants, on the reason that some
defamatory imputations were made by the defendants in their written
statement dated 17th January, 2005 filed by them in Civil Suit No.403 of
2004. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed for want of court fee.
According to the statement made in the present suit, the said imputations
against the plaintiff made in the written statement filed in Civil Suit
No.403/2004 were totally false. It is stated that since the same defamatory
imputations made by the defendants are repeated/republished by the
defendants in the Court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, M.M., Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi on 8th March, 2011 and 21st July, 2011 in criminal complaint filed by
him titled as Prem Peyara vs. Kamla Sinha @ Kamla Prem, therefore, a fresh
cause of action has arisen in his favour. Thus, the present suit is
maintainable as the same has been filed within the period of limitation of
one year under the said Article.
3. The plaintiff has not denied the fact that when the said alleged
imputations were made by the defendants in their written statement dated
17th January, 2005, no suit for damages within one year was filed by the
plaintiff against the defendants. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff
that since the said imputations are repeated by the defendants in the on-
going cross-examination of the plaintiff during trial proceedings in the same
Court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, M.M., and which were referred on 8 th March,
2011 and 21st July, 2011 when DW Mukesh Kumar was examined in chief
by defendant No.1, therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit
within his rights.
4. In the present case, the right to seek the claim of damages/
compensation admittedly accrued to the plaintiff on 17th January, 2005.
Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides limitation of one year when
the libel is published. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, by
referring the same imputations in the cross-examination the same amount to
republishing the same, thus the suit is maintainable. In support of his
submissions, the following judgments are referred by the learned counsel for
the plaintiff:-
(i) Harbhajan Singh vs. The State of Punjab, reported in
1961 (1) Crl.L.J. 710
(ii) Kedutso Kafpo vs. Keneingulie, reported in (1994) 1
GLR 145
(iii) Umed Abid Khan & Ors. vs. Vincy Gonsalves & Ors.,
reported in 2010(1) ALLMR 74
(iv) "Truth" (N.Z.) Ltd. vs. Philiph North Holloway,
reported in (1960) 1 WLR 997
5. As far as the proposition of law as referred by the defendants is
concerned, there is no dispute that every republication of a libel is a new
libel and each publisher is answerable for his act to the same extent as if
calumny originated from him. The publisher of a libel is clearly responsible
irrespective of the fact whether he is the originator of the libel. However,
the facts in the present case are different, as it is the admitted position that
the plaintiff in the plaint has himself admitted that the defamatory
imputations made by the defendants in their written statement dated
17th January, 2005 filed by them in Civil Suit No.403/2004, no suit was filed
by the plaintiff as provided under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963
which provides the limitation for one year.
6. I do not agree with the contention of the plaintiff that a fresh cause of
action has arisen when defendant No.1 in the cross-examination of the
plaintiff during the trial proceedings referred the said imputations or
confronted the same when DW Mukesh Kumar was examined in chief by
defendant No.1. A mere reference of said imputations in the proceeding for
the purpose of evidence or reference in order to prove the case by the party
does not amount to republishing the same and no advantage of limitation to
file the suit libel under the said circumstance can be given to the party,
otherwise there would be no end of period of limitation. In case, the
plaintiff had any grievance about the alleged imputations made by the
defendants in the written statement dated 17 th January, 2005, the right of the
plaintiff was accrued on the said date itself. No suit was filed by the
plaintiff within the time provided under the said article which could have
been filed till 16th January, 2006. However, the present case has been filed
in the year 2011 which is clearly barred by limitation.
7. Under these circumstances, the application of the defendants is
allowed. The plaint is liable to be rejected being barred by limitation.
CS(OS) No.2263/2011
Since the I.A. No.5107/2012 filed by the defendants has been allowed,
the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed under the provisions of Order VII,
Rule 11(d) CPC being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2012/ka
