THTHAGAT SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 21-7-2006 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raigarh (CG) in Civil Suit No. 7-B/2006 wherein the said court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for compensation of Rs.75,700/- on account of defamation caused by respondent which is caused on 23-9-2003 in the court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Raigarh while deposing before the said court and made imputation against the appellant that he is criminal minded.

(2.) Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent/defendant before the trial court on the ground that the appellant is running a computer institution in Raigarh city and said institution affiliated to State and all India level various computer institution. Further, he is a political figure and local leader of the nationalist congress party. On 29-7-1996 appellant got married with one Kapila Taneja. Said marriage was a "Gandharwa and love marriage" without consent of family members of Kapila Taneja. Out of said wedlock a she baby was born on 27-10-1992. After some time of marriage wife of the plaintiff/appellant went to her marital house and made a conspiracy against the appellant and his family members to indulge them in a criminal case. On 3-1-2002 said Kapila Taneja herself poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze and sustained burn injuries. Immediately she was taken to hospital by mother of the appellant at Raigarh thereafter she was shifted to Bhilai hospital where she had been treated by the doctors and entire medical treatment was afforded by the maternal aunt of the appellant. Upon such incident wife of the appellant lodged report in Police Station against the appellant, his mother and maternal aunt under Sections 307 and 498-A, read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant was charge-sheeted and case was tried and the trial was started as Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2003. The respondent appeared before the trial court as witness and deposed that the appellant is criminal minded. The said imputation brought down the reputation of the appellant that is why he filed suit for damages before the trial Court, but the trial Court recorded finding that while deposing as witness before the Sessions Court the respondent had absolute privilege and therefore, he is not liable to be involved in the civil proceeding.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under: