JUDGMENT : (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2023 (decree signed on 13.03.2023) passed in Title Suit No. 233 of 2007 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) VII at Dhanbad whereby the suit filed by the appellants seeking damages to the extent of Rs. 1,01,05,000/- has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered the materials on record on merits and therefore the case is fit to be remanded for fresh consideration. He has further submitted that the suit has been dismissed primarily on the ground that an order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was arising out of criminal case instituted between the parties arising out of the same transaction and in the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Ext. G) it was observed that the appellants would withdraw their civil suit and the matter ended in compromise. The learned counsel has submitted that the defendant herein had filed a petition for modification before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking modification of Exhibit-G and the petition was Ext. A. A prayer was made to modify the order dated 23.04.2015 so as to undo the prejudice that would be caused to Lalit Kumar Agarwal and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1357-1358/2009 if the respondent Tarun Gupta does not withdraw title Suit No. 233/2007 in terms of order dated 23.04.2015. 4. The learned counsel submits that a prayer for modification was dismissed and therefore the prayer of the present defendant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the consequence of not withdrawing the Title Suit No. 233 of 2007 was also dismissed. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to withdraw the Title Suit No. 233 of 2007. The learned counsel has submitted that Exhibit-A seeking modification of the order dated 23.04.2015 and dismissal of the prayer for modification has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court and therefore the impugned judgment is perverse and the learned Trial Court ought to have been entered into the merits of the case to award damages. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that Exhibit-A seeking modification of the order dated 23.04.2015 and dismissal of the prayer for modification has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court and therefore the impugned judgment is perverse and the learned Trial Court ought to have been entered into the merits of the case to award damages. 5. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Court has wrongly recorded that the news regarding the FIR lodged against the plaintiff which was published in the newspaper was not produced by the plaintiffs. He submits that the plaint itself reveals that newspaper cuttings were filed along with the plaint and the details regarding newspaper publication has been mentioned in paragraph 16 of the plaint which was published in daily newspaper in the month of May/June/August 2007. 6. However, upon a query of this court the learned counsel has fairly submitted that though along with the list of documents which was filed before the learned Trial Court it was mentioned as Item No. 8 “relevant portion of newspaper publication” but the newspaper publications were not exhibited. The learned counsel submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court that the newspaper publication was not filed is incorrect, though they were not exhibited . The learned counsel has submitted that the entire case was based upon the newspaper publication which related to the criminal case filed against the plaintiff. The learned counsel submits that on account of such newspaper publication the appellants have suffered damages and the appellants were entitled to damages. 7. The learned counsel submitted upon query of this court that so far as criminal cases are concerned, the same have been quashed by virtue of compromise made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon further query, he has also submitted that suit filed by the defendant of the present case has also been withdrawn by the defendant as per the compromise. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as present suit is concerned, the same was not withdrawn as the prayer for modification of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was itself dismissed. 8. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as present suit is concerned, the same was not withdrawn as the prayer for modification of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was itself dismissed. The learned counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.04.2015 as well as order refusing to modify the order dated 23.04.2015 has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit without considering the materials on record particularly the publication of the newspaper extract which was said to have been filed along with the plaint, though not exhibited. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that parties have acted pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Both plaintiffs and defendants were the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there was clear direction for the withdrawal of the suit of the respective parties. He submits that the plaintiff no. 1 is the partnership firm and other plaintiffs are the partners of the partnership firm. The learned counsel has also submitted that dismissal of the prayer for modification has no bearing in the matter and the learned court has rightly read the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as it is. He submits that since the plaintiffs did not withdraw the suit as per his undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore there was no occasion for the learned court to award damages to the appellant apart from the fact that the matter was already settled before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel has also submitted that alleged newspaper publication is of the year 2007 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was passed later in the year 2015 that the suit for damages was filed in the year 2007 itself and the criminal case was also ended in compromise between the parties and the defendant has also withdraw the suit which was filed for specific performance of contract. 10. Arguments concluded. 11. Judgment is reserved.