JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—The plaintiff, who has been permitted to sue as an indigent person, has laid the present suit for recovery of Rs.6,20,000/- as damages, viz., Rs. 5,00,000/- for defamation, Rs. l,00,000/-for harassment and Rs. 20,000/- for harassment to the family members. 2. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is that he was appointed as driver by the defendants and was given even appreciation letters for his very good driving. His appointment was extended by one year on 1.4.1994. The plaintiff, who hails from the hills, was very hard-working and performed his duties with great devotion. He is having a small family of his parents, brothers, in-laws and belongs to a respectable community. It was to earn his livelihood that he was working as a driver. The defendants informed him that they were dis-continuing his services on which he left Delhi and came to his village after 16.8.1995. When he reached his native place, he was coerced by his wife, parents and other community members including relations about his behaviour/ character which was communicated to them by defendant No. 1 vide letter dated August 16, 1995 mentioning therein that the plaintiff is an indisciplined, dishonest, doubtful, corrupt and disloyal person to the organisation. Everyone believed the letter and thus, the plaintiff was defamed in the society, with the result, that he had been made to live away from his home village. It is further claimed that earlier, at no point of time, nothing adverse was communicated to the plaintiff by the defendants nor any inquiry was conducted against him. The defendants, with the intention of defaming the plaintiff, made totally false statements against him whereby the plaintiff has suffered inasmuch as his reputation has been lowered in the eyes of his wife, parents, brothers and public at large including his relations, neighbourers and friends. He has further suffered mental as well as physical harassment. His blood pressure had increased and was having sleepless nights. Hence this suit. 3. The defendants contested the claim. He has further suffered mental as well as physical harassment. His blood pressure had increased and was having sleepless nights. Hence this suit. 3. The defendants contested the claim. After narrating the purpose for which the organisation, defendant No. 2 has been constituted and its work, achievements and association and the circumstances under which the plaintiff was employed, his conduct and behaviour and the circumstances under which FIR had to be lodged against him and his services had to be terminated in the form of preliminary objections 1 to 7, the defendants raised further preliminary objections that the plaint lacks material particulars and is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court Rules and Orders; that the plaintiff has "suggested falsehood" and suppressed material facts, therefore, the suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, therefore, he is disentitled to the relief claimed; that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit on account of his "deeds, acts and omissions"; that the suit is not triable by this Court and is time-barred. On merits, while admitting the appointment of the plaintiff as driver and the extension of one year given to him in service, the claim of the plaintiff that he is a good driver and a hardworking and devoted person has been denied. It has been claimed that it was on account of the acts and omissions on the part of the plaintiff that his services were discontinued and that the letter terminating his services was addressed to him in a confidential cover and if he had shown it to other persons, that is entirely his own responsibility. Rest of the claim as made out in the plaint has been denied. 4. Plaintiff filed replication wherein the grounds of defence taken in the written statement were denied and the claim as made out in the plaint was reasserted. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:— 1. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 have defamed the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative, to what extent the said defendants are liable for damages to the plaintiff? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff was addicted to drinking and thereby he was guilty of misconduct as an employee of the said defendants? OPD. 4. OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative, to what extent the said defendants are liable for damages to the plaintiff? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff was addicted to drinking and thereby he was guilty of misconduct as an employee of the said defendants? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff threatened to kidnap the grand-daughter of defendant No. 1 as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 7. Relief. 8. Parties led evidence. Arguments were heard. FINDINGS Issue No. 1. 7. To properly appreciate as to whether the imputed act of the defendants amounts to tort of defamation or not, it is necessary to make reference to the legal aspects of the matter. 8. Winfield has defined defamation as follows : "Defamation is the publication of statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. It is libel if the statement be in permanent form and slander if the consists in significant words or gestures." 9. In view of the above definition of defamation, following are the essential ingredients of the tort of defamation : 1. Malice. The words must have been published maliciously. 2. They must be defamatory. 3. The words must have reference to the plaintiff. 4. They must be published. 10. In the instant case, the defamatory statement made basis to sue the defendants, constitute a part of the letter Ex. PW-l/A and the relevant part thereof reads as follows : "You were appointed on contract for one year from 1st April, 1995 to 31st March, 1996 "with reservation because your conduct and character was doubtful. You were given warning to reform yourself." Now, it has been sufficiently proved that you are an indisciplined, dishonest, doubtful, corrupt and disloyal person to the organisation.......You have created terror among the women staff of SAP-India, so that, nobody can speak about your misdeeds." 11. The aforesaid words are prima facie defamatory but to succeed in an action of defamation, the plaintiff must not only prove that the words spoken/published are defamatory and refer to him but has to further prove publication thereof, which is an essential element of the civil law of defamation. The aforesaid words are prima facie defamatory but to succeed in an action of defamation, the plaintiff must not only prove that the words spoken/published are defamatory and refer to him but has to further prove publication thereof, which is an essential element of the civil law of defamation. It is, therefore, necessary to set out as to what the publication of the defamatory words spoken/written is, so as to render the publisher liable in tort. A communication of the defamatory words/matter to the person thereby defamed cannot injure his reputation in the estimation of others, though, it may hurt his self esteem. Therefore, mere communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed will not give a cause of action to sue for damages for defamation. To give such a cause of action, the publication must be proved to be a communication of the defamatory matter to a person or persons other than the person defamed. 12. In the case in hand, letter Ex. PW-l/A, on the face of it, is addressed by defendant No. 1 while acting for defendant No. 2, to the plaintiff at his admitted home address by registered post. The communication infact is regarding intimating the plaintiff about the termination of his services under defendant No. 2 on and with effect from 16.8.1995 and the contents alleged to be defamatory appear to be the background against which the services of the plaintiff had been terminated. The plaintiff in his statement has admitted that letter Ex. PW-l/A was addressed to him by the defendants under a registered cover. It is, thus, amply clear that the letter in question was not intended to communicate the alleged defamatory contents thereof to a person or persons other than the plaintiff. 13. The case of the plaintiff is that this letter was received at his home address by his father who is illiterate, therefore, the letter was taken to a Junior Basic Trained Teacher to read its contents to the father of the plaintiff. Thus, the contents of the letter Ex. PW-1/B are alleged to have come to the knowledge of other persons. The question, therefore, arises as to whether in these circumstances the defendants can be held to have addressed the communication Ex. PW-l/A and thereby published it to such persons who came to know about it. Thus, the contents of the letter Ex. PW-1/B are alleged to have come to the knowledge of other persons. The question, therefore, arises as to whether in these circumstances the defendants can be held to have addressed the communication Ex. PW-l/A and thereby published it to such persons who came to know about it. Ordinarily, when a letter is addressed to a particular person, the writer is not responsible, except for a publication to the addressee. If the letter is defamatory and the addressee shows or reads the letter to other persons or the letter is received by a person other than the addressee which is not the intention of the sender and such recipient shows the letter to some other person to know its contents, the sender cannot be held liable to have defamed the addressee, unless it is proved that the sender knew or ought to have known that the letter would be opened by some person other than the addressee. 14. In the instant case, had the plaintiff been in Delhi at the relevant time and the letter was addressed by the defendants to his home address, it could reasonably be inferred by their act of not handing over the letter to the plaintiff in Delhi but sending it to his home address, that it could be known to them that the letter might be opened by a person other than the addressee when it was addressed to a place where the addressee, at the relevant time, was not residing. However, this is not the position here. The letter Ex. PW-l/A is dated August 16, 1995. In his statement, the plaintiff has admitted that he had gone home on leave and when he reported back for duty, he was informed by the defendants that his services stood terminated. When he asked them to give letter of termination of his services, he was informed that it had been sent to him by post and thereafter he returned back to his home. This admission on the part of the plaintiff makes it clear that at the time when the services of the plaintiff were terminated by the defendants, he was in his home village, that is why the letter Ex. PW-1 /A communicating such termination was sent at home address by post. It cannot, therefore, be said that while sending the communication Ex. PW-1 /A communicating such termination was sent at home address by post. It cannot, therefore, be said that while sending the communication Ex. PW-1 /A to the plaintiff at his home address under a registered cover, the defendants knew or ought to have known that the letter Ex. PW-l/A would be opened by some person other than the plaintiff himself. Thus, the ingredients of malice on the part of the defendants or publication of the communication Ex. PW-l/A by them is not established. 15. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants 1 and 2 had defamed him as alleged. This issue is accordingly held against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 16. Since issue No. 1 has been held in the negative, therefore, the defendants cannot be held to be liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 17. To prove this issue, the defendants examined only one witness, namely, defendant No. 1 (DW-1). In his statement, DW-1 has not stated that the plaintiff was addicted to drinking. He has, however, referred to certain complaints received against the plaintiff, and proved copies thereof. It has not been suggested even to the plaintiff (PW-1) in his cross-examination that he was addicted to drinking but a few instances of misconduct have been suggested to him. There is thus no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the plaintiff was addicted to drinking. Therefore, it cannot be held that the alleged misconduct was the result of plaintiffs addiction to taking liquor. This issue is, therefore, held against the defendants. Issue No. 4 18. Neither there is any cogent and reliable evidence to prove this issue for want of production of the primary evidence nor this issue has any material bearing on the claim of the plaintiff for the reason that the alleged threats of kidnapping etc. by the plaintiff relate to the period when the services of the plaintiff had already been terminated vide letter Ex. PW-l/A on the basis of which the plaintiff has instituted the present suit. This issue is accordingly held against the defendants. Issue No. 5 19. There is nothing wrong in the form of the suit. This issue is, therefore, held against the defendants. Issue No. 6 20. The letter Ex. PW-l/A on the basis of which the plaintiff has instituted the present suit. This issue is accordingly held against the defendants. Issue No. 5 19. There is nothing wrong in the form of the suit. This issue is, therefore, held against the defendants. Issue No. 6 20. The letter Ex. PW-l/A on the basis of which the plaintiff has sued came into being on 16.8.1995 whereas the suit had been presented on 13.3.1996 well within the period of limitation. The suit, therefore, cannot be held to be time barred. This issue is accordingly held against the defendants. Issue No. 7 (Relief) 21. In view of the findings on issue No. 1 above, the suit merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 22. The plaintiff who was permitted to sue as an indigent person, having failed in the suit, is directed to pay the court fees of Rs. 8395.20 which he would have paid, had he not been permitted to sue as indigent person. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned collector for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Court fee from the plaintiff Suit dismissed.