Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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