Harvest Securities Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Bp Singapore Pvt Ltd & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 1285 Del

17 $~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 103/2013
      HARVEST SECURITIES PVT LTD & ANR                     ..... Plaintiffs
                       Through: Mr. Avi Singh & Mr. Aditya V.
                                     Singh, Advs.
                       Versus
      BP SINGAPORE PVT LTD & ANR                       ..... Defendants
                       Through: Mr. Manish K. Jha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                 ORDER

% 10.03.2014 IA No.16579/2013 (of the plaintiffs u/O 11 Rule 1 CPC)

1. During the hearing of this application, it has transpired that the claim of the plaintiffs inter alia is for compensation for slander. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs in para No.35 of the plaint have pleaded that the defendants have published slanderous and / or libellous statements in regard to the plaintiff No.2 and which have resulted in the plaintiff's No.2 reputation and goodwill being tarnished and caused economic loss to both the plaintiffs. None of the other paragraphs of the plaint also plead as to what was the slanderous / libellous statement.

2. Upon the same being put to the counsel for the plaintiffs, he has drawn attention to the documents at pages No.127 to 130 which are the communications of non-parties to the suit to the plaintiffs to the effect that the defendants and their officials had made slanderous statements about the plaintiffs. The counsel for the plaintiffs on the basis thereof states that the

plaintiffs were in the plaint not required to disclose what was the slanderous / libellous statement for which compensation is claimed.

3. It is also stated that one of the interrogatories sought to be served by the plaintiffs on the defendants is as to what slanderous / libellous statements, the defendants / their officials made qua the plaintiffs to the persons who had sent the communications aforesaid to the plaintiffs.

4. I am unable to agree. As far as my understanding goes, without the plaintiffs in the plaint pleading the slanderous / libellous statement for which compensation is claimed, the defendants have no opportunity to respond thereto. The defendants are required to file the written statement to the pleas in the plaint and not qua the documents even if served on the defendants along with the plaint. I am also of the prima facie view that such pleas would be a material fact within the meaning of Order 6 Rule 2 of the CPC and which are necessarily required to be as per Rule 4 of Order 6 of the CPC. The same would also be a fact constituting a cause of action within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 1 of the CPC.

5. As far back as in Nannu Mal Vs. Ram Prasad AIR 1926 Allahabad 622 it was held that a plaint in a case of defamation ought to allege not only the publication, or set out not only the words, but that they were published or spoken to, at any rate, some named individuals at a particular time and place specified in the plaint and in the absence thereof is vague and liable to be struck out. Similarly, in Brijlal Prasad Ramcharan Sharma Vs. Mahant Laldas Guru Gautamdas Bairagee AIR 1940 Nagpur 125 it was held that without pleading the names of persons to whom or in whose hearing

slanderous statements were made and setting out the words which were spoken, no case for compensation for defamation can be said to have been made out. Else, for general principles in this regard, reference can be made to Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College (1987) 2 SCC 555 and Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786.

6. As far as the argument of the counsel for the plaintiffs, of the plaintiffs serving interrogatories in this respect on the defendants is concerned, it has been put to the counsel for the plaintiffs whether in the event of the defendants taking a stand that they had not made any slanderous / libellous statement qua the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would be willing to withdraw the said claim.

7. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that he will not and would produce the witnesses to whom such slanderous / libellous statements were made by the defendants / their officials.

8. I am prima facie of the view that aforesaid amounts to the plaintiffs, after institution of the suit, conducting a roving and fishing inquiry and which is not the scope of interrogatories, the purport whereof is to limit the trial.

9. This Court in Tarun Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 61 (1996) DLT 174 held that interrogatories cannot be allowed to be delivered in case they are in the nature of making fishing inquiries from the adversary; interrogatories must be confined to facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit.

10. It has also been asked from the counsel for the plaintiffs as to how, in the absence of any material plea qua the claim of compensation for defamation, an issue within the meaning of Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC on the said aspect can be said to arise.

11. It is deemed appropriate to given an opportunity to the counsel for the plaintiffs to address on the said aspect.

12. List on 12th March, 2014, as sought.

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

MARCH 10, 2014 'gsr'..