Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court 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 Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Rejection of Defamation Suit for Failure to Disclose Cause of Action - P & H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent case Rampal Sihag v. Gurmeet Singh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a civil suit for defamation filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action. The court allowed the application and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) on the grounds of not disclosing any cause of action and being barred by law.

The plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit seeking recovery of damages for defamation and dragging the plaintiff-respondent into false and frivolous complaints before various authorities. The defendant-petitioner argued that none of the facts constituting the cause of action, i.e., defamation, were forthcoming from the plaint. It was further averred that there were no details mentioned other than vague accusations. The plaintiff-respondent contested the application, but the Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the issue could not be gone into without affording an opportunity of leading evidence to both parties. The defendant-petitioner then filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the Trial Court's order.

The High Court noted that the plaint did not disclose any dates on which the cause of action was stated to have arisen, and there was not a whisper as to which derogatory/defamatory statements had allegedly been made by the defendant-petitioner. The plaint was also silent regarding the details of the authorities wherein the alleged defamatory/derogatory statements were alleged to have been made by the defendant-petitioner. Simply averring in the plaint that defamatory and derogatory statements had been made would not amount to disclosure of cause of action. The court observed that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action whatsoever and, consequently, allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant-petitioner and ordered the plaint in the civil suit to be rejected.

Rampal Sihag v. Gurmeet Singh

Latest Legal News