Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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