Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition Insurer Cannot Evade Liability After Collecting Premium – Registered Ownership Is What the Law Recognizes: Allahabad High Court Insurance Law | It Is Not Enough To Take Premiums – Full Disclosure of Risk Triggers Is a Legal Duty: Andhra Pradesh High Court Adverse Possession Cannot Exceed What Is Actually Possessed: Bombay High Court Loan Recovery Visit Cannot Be Turned Into Prosecution for Outraging Modesty Without Prima Facie Case: Calcutta High Court Woman Alone Bears the Burden – Her Right to Abort Cannot Be Criminalised for Marital Discord: Delhi High Court Quashes Section 312 IPC No Pension Without Sanctioned Post, No Regularization By The Backdoor: Gauhati High Court Rejects Long-Service Claim Of Work-Charged Retirees NIOS Accreditation Not a Licence to Run Unrecognised Schools: Kerala High Court Shuts Down Religious School Operating Without State Permission RFCTLARR Act, 2013 | Section 5 Limitation Act Applies to Section 74 Appeals; High Court Can Condone Delay Beyond Statutory Period: Supreme Court Grant, Refusal or Cancellation of Bail is Purely Interlocutory — No Revision Lies: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenges to Bail Cancellation in ₹7.3 Crore MGNREGA Scam Shareholders Aren’t Owners of Company Property: Karnataka High Court Denies Locus to Challenge KIADB Sub-Lease by Former Investors Illegal Entry Can’t Earn Legal Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bars Counting of Ad-Hoc Service After Reinstatement Forgery and Breach of Trust Are Not the Same - Not Covered by Double Jeopardy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for FIR Quashing Strong Suspicion is Enough to Frame Charge, Even in Matrimonial Disputes: Orissa High Court Dismisses Anubhav Mohanty’s Plea for Discharge in Cruelty Case Placard Punishment “He Will Never Misbehave With Any Girl” -  Unjustified: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Impact Was From Behind: P&H High Court Blames Solely Stationary Tractor For Fatal Night Crash Injunction Is Not a Matter of Sentiment but of Possession: Supreme Court Reaffirms That Pleadings and Proof Are the Soul of Civil Suits Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Unmarried Women Have Equal Right to Abortion Like Married Women up to 24 Weeks: Bombay High Court Liberty Cannot Be Held Hostage to an Endless Probe: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister in Liquor Scam Cases

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