Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

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