Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 579 (MAD)

S. Maheswaran v. M. Jegadambal

2013-01-24

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 29.08.2012, passed in I.A.NO.542 of 2012 in O.S.No.400 of 2011, by the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief: "Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to (a) pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff. (b) Pass an order directing the Defendant to bear the cost of the Suit and (c) Pass such further orders as the Hon'ble Court finds deem fit as to the facts of the case and thus to render justice." (Extracted as such) The same plaintiff, even before filing of the written statement by the defendant, filed I.A.No.542 of 2012 seeking the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the following amendments and thus to render justice. Amendments to be made (a) In para NO.9 of the plaint, in the 4th line after "in the hears of Plaintiff" the word "and the Public" has been omitted. Therefore after "in the hearts of Plaintiff" the word "and the Public" is to be inserted. (b) The following sentence to be added in continuation of the Para No.10 of the plaint which was further defaming and lowering the honour of the plaintiff before the public." (Extracted as such) Whereupon, the counter affidavit was filed by the defendant and thereafter, the lower Court allowed the said application in toto. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, the Civil Revision Petition has been focussed by the defendant on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the amendment which was sought to be got effected in the plaint, is nothing but an afterthought and there is no question of typographical error and consciously the word 'public' was omitted, which was an ingredient of the concept "defamation". 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the amendment which was sought to be got effected in the plaint, is nothing but an afterthought and there is no question of typographical error and consciously the word 'public' was omitted, which was an ingredient of the concept "defamation". Without considering all these facts, simply the lower Court allowed that application and hence, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pyramid his arguments thus: The lower Court taking into account the genuine claim of the plaintiff and that the error crept in because of the typographical error, appropriately and appositely in view of which contains the relevant grievance of the the paragraph 12 of the plaint, which contains the relevant gravamens of the tort defamation, allowed the application warranting no interference in this revision petition. It is open for the defendant to file the written statement and contest the matter and he is not entitled to get the order of the lower Court set aside at this stage by filing this Civil Revision Petition. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the lower Court in allowing the amendment sought to be made in the plaint? The Point: 8. A mere running of the eye over the proposed amendment as well as the averments in the original plaint would display and demonstrate, connote and denote that the suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming damages in view of the alleged defamatory statements contained in the reply notice given by the defendant to the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's notice. 9. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant being not satisfied with the reply given in that defamatory manner went on publishing that statement which actually made him to answer very many persons' queries and that he was humiliated and embedded and thereby he was defamed in the eye of public. So far as the plaintiff's contention that out of typographical error the word 'public' has been left out found favourable with the trial Court, which consequently allowed the application. 10. So far as the plaintiff's contention that out of typographical error the word 'public' has been left out found favourable with the trial Court, which consequently allowed the application. 10. In my considered opinion, the entire reading of the plaint would connote and denote that as per the plaintiff, because of the conduct of the defendant, her reputation has got down in the eye of the public. 11. Hence, in paragraph No.9 of the plaint, the plaintiff specifically wanted to get incorporated such a factual position, and that too before the commencement of the trial and even before the filing of the written statement, such amendment was sought for and allowed by the lower Court, which this Court cannot found fault with and the plaintiff was given due opportunity of pleading adequately and proving the same. 12. In this connection I would like to recollect the following legal maxims: 1. "Justitia nemini neganda est." (Justice is to be denied to no one.) 2. "Judicis est judicaro secundum allegata et probata." (Itis the proper role of a judge to decide according to the allegations and proofs.) 13. In adherence to such legal maxims, the plaintiff took steps and the Court also allowed it. However, in respect of the proposed amendment in Paragraph No.10 of the plaint is concerned, it was to describe the nature of the reply notice. In the cause of action, viz., paragraph 10 of the plaint, the nature of reply notice is found detailed. Wherefore the another sought in paragraph No.10 is a surplusage. The lower Court without considering this aspect simply allowed amendment also, warranting interference in this revision. 14. Accordingly, the proposed amendment with regard to paragraph No.10 alone shall stand set aside and the rest of the order is upheld. The point is answered accordingly. 15. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 16. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would make an extempore submission that a suitable direction may be given to the lower Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame. Where possible, the lower Court shall do well to see that O.S.No.400 of 2011 is disposed of preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.