Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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

Similar News