Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh 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