Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Defamation Suit for Lack of Cause of Action

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a defamation suit for failure to disclose a cause of action. The case, Bishambar Dayal Kaushik v. Gurmeet Singh, involved a revision petition challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting the defendant-petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit seeking damages for defamation and false complaints made by the defendant-petitioner before various authorities. However, the defendant-petitioner argued that the plaint did not specify the defamatory statements or provide details of the alleged complaints. They contended that statements made before a court or quasi-judicial authority are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis for a defamation claim.

After examining the plaint, the High Court found that it failed to disclose the cause of action for defamation. The Court noted that the plaint did not mention specific defamatory statements or provide details of the authorities where such statements were allegedly made. Simply alleging the existence of defamatory statements without providing specific details was deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action.

The Court referred to the principle of judicial privilege and cited the judgment in Brig. B.C. Rana (Retd.) v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., which stated that statements made in affidavits before a quasi-judicial authority are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a defamatory action.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition and rejected the plaint, holding that it lacked a cause of action and was barred by law. The Court emphasized the importance of specificity in defamation claims, highlighting the need for specific details of defamatory statements and alleged complaints to substantiate the cause of action.

This judgment serves as a reminder to plaintiffs in defamation cases to provide clear and specific particulars when filing a plaint. Mere allegations of defamatory statements without specific details may not be sufficient to proceed with a civil suit for defamation.

Decided on: 18.04.2023

Bishambar Dayal Kaushik vs Gurmeet Singh 

Latest Legal News