Delhi High Court
N.N.S.Rana vs Indian Express & Anr. on 1 September, 2017
$~R-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: 1st September 2017.
+ RFA 49/2009
N.N.S.RANA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary,
Mr.Kushagra Sinha, Advocates
versus
INDIAN EXPRESS & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.N.B. Joshi, Mr. Abhijeet Negi,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 01.09.2017
P.S. TEJI, J. (ORAL)
1) The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of
the CPC thereby challenging the judgment and final order dated
03.12.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge - 16 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the learned trial court had
dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.
2) The facts in brief are that the plaintiff/appellant was highly
qualified officer and belonged to Indian Railway Personnel Service
(IRPS), 1964 Batch of Civil Services and was in the rank and pay of
Joint Secretary to Government of India. He had filed a suit against the
defendants/respondents against their publication of news item in the
Late City Edition of newspaper Indian Express 04.02.2000 of
respondent No. 1, with the heading "Railway Official guilty of sexual
harassment may get promoted." It was alleged in the suit that the
defendant/respondent with a view of defame, denigrate and bring the
bad reputation of the plaintiff/appellant and at the behest of some
unknown vested interests. The plaintiff/appellant claimed to have
suffered great humiliation, harassment, loss of reputation, loss of
respect not only in the immediate society and acquaintances but also
in the mind and thoughts of general public at large. The
plaintiff/appellant also wrote legal notice dated 17.03.2000 requesting
respondent No. 1 and 2 to withdraw the said news item and publish an
unconditional apology and pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as
damages. Since despite service of notice, defendants neither withdraw
the news item nor paid the compensation, the plaintiff/appellant filed
a suit praying therein for a decree granting damages and
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.
3) In response to the plaint, the defendant/respondent urged that
the publication of article was entirely based on true and correct facts
and in support thereof, the facts leading to inquiry were referred by
the defendant/respondent. In replication to the response of the
defendant/respondent the plaintiff/appellant reiterated and reaffirmed
his submissions.
4) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed:-
a) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the
preliminary objection No.1 of the written
statement? OPP
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
Rs.10,00,000/- on account of damages and
compensation, as prayed for? OPP
c) Relief.
5) After hearing the parties and the material placed before the trial
court the learned ADJ held that the plaintiff is not entitled for decree
of damages and compensation, as prayed for and the suit of the
plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed.
6) Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 03.12.2008, the
plaintiff/appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
7) Heard.
8) During the course of hearing, it has been admitted by counsel
for the parties that Issue No.1 has been wrongly framed either the
onus was to be fixed on the defendant or the issue was to be framed in
positive manner not in negative, to be established by the plaintiff. It
has been further agreed that since the finding on the issue has been
given as the finding given on preliminary issue considering the
evidence lead by the parties, it would not be sustainable in the eye of
law for the simple reason that preliminary issue has to be decided
without the evidence of the parties on merit. The other factor is that
the preliminary objection raised is virtually the defence of the
defendant on which basis the issue was framed. In the totality of the
circumstances that after framing the issue and calling for the evidence
on merit of the case, the court is to deliver the judgment on the basis
of the evidence lead by the parties and not being the preliminary
issue. In such a scenario, the finding given by the court below as
mentioned above, is redundant or in other words, no consequence. So
the same is deleted.
9) So far as the other issue framed by the court below as Issue
No.2, admittedly, despite leading evidence by the parties, no finding
had been provided by the court below on this issue and it has decided
as a consequence to Issue No.1. In the considered opinion of this
court, the finding on issue No.2 are required to be delivered by the
court below as in fact Issue No.2 is the only issue, which needs to be
adjudicated upon merits of the case by the court below.
10) In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the
agreement of the counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered
opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is
remanded back to the court below who shall hear and decide the Issue
No.2 afresh on the basis of the evidence already lead by the parties.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the District
Judge, Tis Hazari on 13th October 2017, who shall hear the arguments
of the parties afresh or to assign the same to some other court
competent to try the same.
11) Trial court record alongwith judgment of this court be sent back
forthwith.
12) The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
P.S.TEJI, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2017
pkb
