Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 18 (ORI)

AVA CHAKRABORTY v. BHABATOSH SINHA

2017-01-02

DEBABRATA DASH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Debabrata Dash, J. - The petitioner by filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks quashment of an order dated 03.05.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) First Court, Cuttack in C.S. No. 140 of 2005. 2. Facts necessary for the purpose are stated hereunder:- The petitioners (plaintiffs) have filed the above noted suit for defamation on account of libelous statement made in the written statement filed by this opposite party who is the defendant in the present suit as also defendant in C.S. No. 375 of 2002, claiming compensation. The above noted suit i.e. C.S. No. 375 of 2002 has been filed by one Smt. Prava Sinha who happens to be the elder sister of these plaintiffs. It is stated that these plaintiffs are in no way concerned with the properties which are the subject matter of that suit and the dispute therein centers round Prava Sinha and this opposite party (defendant) who has been arraigned as a defendant therein. The petitioners being the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 140 of 2005 filed a petition under Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction from the court to the opposite party (defendant) to begin with the hearing of the suit by leading evidence. This application has been rejected. At this place, it is better for proper appreciation to reproduce the part of the order of the trial court:- " xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx. Perused the petition, objection, plaint averments and the W.S.. Order 18 Rule -1 C.P.C. provides right to begin. It states that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. In the present case it is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant has admitted about the acts done by him and disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. So, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant has the right to begin first. In the present case it is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant has admitted about the acts done by him and disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. So, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant has the right to begin first. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant that since the plaintiffs have to prove their case by giving cogent evidence, at no stretch of imagination the defendant can be directed to begin evidence first. On perusal of both pleadings I find that the defendant has denied the allegations made against him which does not warrant that the defendant to begin his evidence first in this case. Rather the plaintiffs who have to prove their case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. Thus the petition filed by the plaintiffs to direct the defendant to begin the suit first cannot be sustained in the eye of law." 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party. I have carefully gone through the order in question as also the rival pleadings. From the beginning some important aspects are required to be kept in view dealing with this matter and those are:- (i) The statements said to have been made by this opposite party who is the defendant in the present suit, being the defendant in the earlier suit are those in the written statement that he filed in the said suit i.e. C.S. No. 375 of 2002 filed by the elder sister of these petitioners for declaration of her right, title and interest over the land in suit form the subject matter. Prior to this Asutosh, the brother of the opposite party had filed the suit for partition against the husband of the elder sister of these petitioners. (ii) In the written statement filed by these petitioners in C.S. No. 375 of 2002, the following averments are being called as libelous (a) Para-14 of the written statement - "xx xx xx. Rather, the plaintiff's father and brothers etc. used to depend for their affairs of daily sustainable upon defendant or the defendant no.4 since they did not have sufficient income to maintain themselves, nor they were having any income out of their negligible extent of agricultural field in the village." (b) Para 18 of the written statement :- "xx xx xx. Rather, the plaintiff's father and brothers etc. used to depend for their affairs of daily sustainable upon defendant or the defendant no.4 since they did not have sufficient income to maintain themselves, nor they were having any income out of their negligible extent of agricultural field in the village." (b) Para 18 of the written statement :- "xx xx xx. The shifting of natural parents and other members of the plaintiff from their village to the suit house was done, because, the poverty and want thereof compelled them to seek harbor under the roof of the joint family house at Cuttack. Similarly, the joint family house at Barundei was visited by all the members during festive occasions, although the defendant no.3 used to stay there permanently because of his teacher ship in the village High School who used to take care of other properties of the joint family including the dwelling house." The opposite party undeniably has filed the written statement duly signed by him. However, it is denied that such statements made in the written statement are directed in order to deliberately insult, intimidate or lower down the prestige, reputation as also denying to have been so stated through those averments as scandalous and disparaging. The contentious question thus remains in the suit is as to whether such statements made in the written statement filed by the opposite party in that suit was so made maliciously and whether those constitute libel on the plaintiffs. Thus there arises the question as to who would begin with the hearing of the suit having the right to so begin. The petitioners are not the parties to that suit where the said written statement has been filed by the opposite party. So, here is a case where non-parties to the suit, wherein the pleadings are said to be objectionable and malicious have come to file the suit for defamation claiming the compensation against the said person on the allegation that some of the pleadings constitute libel to them. So, here is a case where non-parties to the suit, wherein the pleadings are said to be objectionable and malicious have come to file the suit for defamation claiming the compensation against the said person on the allegation that some of the pleadings constitute libel to them. The contention of the petitioners that in view of such statement made in the written statement, the onus has shifted to the defendant-opposite party to prove the truthfulness of such averments as those words used are per se defamatory and therefore whether those amount to libel or not is for the court to decide and the plaintiff-petitioners are not to prove the same by adducing evidence. 4. The provision as regards the right to begin as laid down in order -18, rule 1 of the Code reads that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the fact alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or some other additional facts alleged by him, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. Rule -1 of order -18 further says that the party having right to begin shall state his case and produce evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. 5. The trial court as it clearly seen from the order having gone through the rival pleadings has found the opposite party-defendant to have denied the allegation made against him and from that it has been said that the defendant thus is not required to begin with the evidence first and the plaintiff-petitioners have to prove their case. On going through the rival pleadings, and viewing the settled position of law holding the field, in so far as the suit for defamation claiming compensation founded upon the pleadings of the defendant a party in that suit at the instance of a non-party to the said suit to which the pleadings relate, there appears no legal justification to hold the order as passed by the trial court to be in breach of provision under Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code and to have caused miscarriage of justice. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution stands dismissed.