JUDGMENT : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. The defendant is in second appeal. 2. Smt. Seema, the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking for damages of Rs. 5,01,000/- on the ground that she was defamed by the publication of an article in the Kannada weekly “Jilla Samachar” published by the defendant. It was contended that the news item published against the plaintiff was not only false but was per se defamatory. 3. The said suit was contested and the defence set out was that the plaintiff had expressly given her consent to publish the same and since the defendant had permitted the publication, she could not claim to be defamed and claim damages. 4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the defendant had not collected sufficient information and material against the plaintiff before publication and the publication of the news item contained false statements was per se defamatory. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded to decree the suit and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as damages. 5. The defendant being aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. 6. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the news item published against the plaintiff was defamatory and therefore the judgment of the Trial Court was just and proper. 7. Before me, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff could not be entitled to a decree, since she chose to file a suit only against the defendant, though the very same news item had been published not only in the other newspapers, but also on various television channels. 8. In my view, the decision to proceed against a defamatory article rests entirely with the plaintiff. The defendant cannot contend that merely because the plaintiff has not instituted proceedings against the other persons who have published similar articles, he should also be exonerated. 9. In my view, there is absolutely no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. The subject matter of the First appeal was a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, the appellant was required to pay the court fee only on a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and not on a sum of Rs. 5,01,000/- claimed by the plaintiff. 11. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. The subject matter of the First appeal was a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, the appellant was required to pay the court fee only on a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and not on a sum of Rs. 5,01,000/- claimed by the plaintiff. 11. In this appeal, the court fee has been paid on the subject matter of the appeal, i.e. on a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, which in my view, is correct. The office objection in this regard is accordingly over-ruled. 12. Since the subject matter of the appeal in the Appellate Court was also for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, there will be no requirement of paying the court fee on the suit claim i.e. Rs. 5,01,000/-. Since the court fee in the regular appeal was paid by computing the subject matter of the appeal as Rs. 2,50,000/- that portion of the order directing the appellant to pay the deficit court fee is set aside.