Madras High Court
M.Muthumuniandi vs Citu Labour Union on 25 January, 2021
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
M.Muthumuniandi .. Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.CITU Labour Union,
Rep. Through its Convener
M.Sakthivel
2.M.Sakthivel
3.R.Muthumani
4.P.Shanthi
5.S.Janaki
6.K.Janaki
7.Govindhammal
8.R.Rajalatchumi .. Respondents/Appellants/Defendants
PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 2.4.2013 in A.S.No.37 of
2012, on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, reversing the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.183 of 2010 dated 6.10.2012 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.
http://www.judis.nic.in1/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
For Appellant : Mr.F.X.Eugene
For R3 to R8 : Mr.A.Hajamohideen
RR1 & RR2 : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 2010, who had succeeded in
convincing the trial court to grant a decree for damages for defamation,
upon the said decree being reversed by the appellate court in A.S.No.37 of
2012 has come up with this Second Appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants, who belong to a
rival labour union, made certain publications alleging certain irregularities
on the part of the Child Development Project Officer Mrs.S.Karpagam.
While doing so, they had claimed that the plaintiff who is working as a
Junior Assistant in the office is also in collusion with the Child
Development Project Officer. According to the plaintiff, a bit notice, which
has been circulated in and around office, had resulted in publication of a
defamatory allegations against him and lowering of his image in the eyes of
the general public.
http://www.judis.nic.in2/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that there was
no publication of the material said to be defamatory. According to the
defendants, all that was circulated is an invitation to the members of CITU
to participate in a protest being held against the activities of the Child
Development Project Officer and the plaintiff who was a Junior Assistant in
the said office. It is also contended that all the allegations were found to be
true in an enquiry. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff has not made
out that his image was lowered in the eyes of the general public because of
the circulation of the bit notices and therefore, he is not entitled to a decree
for damages.
4. At trial, the plaintiff wasexamined as P.W.1 one Subburaj, who is
the owner of the printing press was examined as P.W.2 and one Rajendra
Cholan, who was the Superintendent in the office of Melavaippar drainage
scheme was examined as P.W.3. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The second
defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one Alaguselvi and Govindammal
were examined as D.Ws 2 and 3. Exts.B1 and B.2 were marked. The copies
of the complaints and proceedings taken by the Department on such
complaints were marked as Exts.X.1 to X12.
http://www.judis.nic.in3/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
5. The trial court, upon consideration of the materials on record,
concluded that the plaintiff has made out a case for defamation and decreed
the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of
2012. The appellate court however disagreed with the findings of the trial
court and held that the plaintiff has not made out a case of defamation. On
the said finding, the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the
suit. Hence, this Second Appeal.
6. The following questions of law were framed by this Court at the
time of admission :
i)Whether the first Appellate Court is correct in
giving a finding that the absence of specific denial under
Order 8 Rule 5 C.P.C would not amount to admission of
the pleadings in plaint?
ii) Whether the first Appellate Court is correct in
saying that the plaintiff did not prove the facts when they
are specifically admitted by the defendants in the
pleadings as well as the evidence?
iii) Whether the first appellate court is correct in
dismissing the suit, when the publications of defendants'
statement, reached the third parties, by defaming the
reputation of plaintiff?
http://www.judis.nic.in4/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
iv) Whether the Government servants/defendants
could be in the Labour Union, affiliated to political parties
and formed the union is against civil service code of
Government servants?
7. I have heard Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Mr.A.Hajamohideen Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 3 to 8.
8. As could be seen from the cause list, the first respondent is a
Labour Union represented by its Convener Mr.M.Sakthivel. Mr.M.Sakthivel
has been shown as the second respondent. It is stated at the bar that the
second respondent is no more. Therefore, the appeal against the second
respondent has abated. Being the suit for defamation, there is no question of
legal representatives being brought on record.
9. Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
elaborating on the questions of law would contend that the defendants had
admitted the fact that they had made those publications and therefore, the
appellate court was not right in concluding that the plaintiff has not proved
the case of defamation. He would also submit that unless there is a specific
http://www.judis.nic.in5/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
denial of claim made in the plaint, it is deemed to have been admitted under
Order 8 Rule 4 C.P.C. He would further submit that once an enquiry has
been launched based on the complaint made by the defendants and others, it
is automatic that the reputation of the plaintiff is lowered in the yes of
public.
10. Contending contra, Mr.A.Hajamohideen, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 3 to 8 submitted that in order to entail the
plaintiff to damages for defamation the plaintiff must prove that there was
publication of defamatory material and as a result of such publication, the
image of the plaintiff or the reputation of the plaintiff is lowered in the eyes
of the third parties/general public. Pointing out that there is total absence of
evidence as the second limb i.e damage suffered by the plaintiff because of
such publication, the appellate court was right in dismissing the suit.
11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either
side.
12. As far as the first question of law is concerned, it is based on a
principle of law that unless there is a clear and specific denial, the
http://www.judis.nic.in6/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
allegations in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. All that is admitted in
the present case is that they had made certain complaints against the
plaintiff to the concerned officers and they had arranged for a protest
meeting in order to attract the attention of the officers to their grievances.
There is no admission of the claim of the plaintiff that the publication itself
has resulted severe damage to his reputation among the general public. Even
assuming that the defendants had not denied the publication, in the absence
of evidence as to loss of reputation there cannot be a decree for damages on
the ground of defamation. Hence, the first question of law is answered
against the appellant.
13. The second question of law will also have to be answered against
the appellant as it also requires proof. As already pointed out, there is no
evidence on the side of the plaintiff to the effect that the image of the
plaintiff was lowered on the eyes of the public because of the publication
made. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that the
requirements of law is satisfied because of Ex.X.1 to X.12. Exts.X1 to X.12
are various complaints made against the plaintiff and the other officer who
was in-charge of the Child Development Project Office at Rajapalayam.
There are also certain proceedings of the superiors of the plaintiff on the
http://www.judis.nic.in7/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
action taken against the plaintiff on those complaints. The complaints to the
Superiors and action being taken by the Superior Officer cannot be a ground
for grant of damages for defamation. It is also claimed that some of those
complaints are not made by the defendants but by others.
14. The third question of law are the requirements of proof of damage
to reputation. As I already pointed out, mere publication cannot give cause
of action for the person to sue for defamation. It should be proved that
publication caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. Unless such
evidence is available, the plaintiff cannot be stated to have satisfied the
requirements of law entailing him for damages that too for defamation.
15. Fourth question of law does not arise at all on the given facts and
circumstances of the case. It relates to the practice of the labour unions
being affiliated to political parties. That question never arose in the present
case. I am of the considered view that the fourth question of law is not
germane and it does not arise in this appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in8/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
16. In view of the answers to the questions of law 1 to 3, this appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
25.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
To:
1.The Sub Court, Virudhunagar,
2.The District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.
3.The Section Officer VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in9/10
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
R.SUBRAMANIAN.J.,
CM
SA(MD)No.215 of 2015
25.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in10/10
