(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment 30th and decree dated September, 2010 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for defamation against an Advocate/defendant/respondent was dismissed, and which suit was filed on the ground that the Advocate/defendant/respondent sent a legal notice dated 30th July, 2008, Ex.PW1/6, alleged to be without authorization of the client one Mrs.Sangita Mudgal.
(2.) THE Trial Court has arrived at a finding of fact based on the evidence led by the respondent/defendant and also Sh.Harender Mudgal, husband of Smt. Sangita Mudgal as DW-2, that there was due authorization on behalf of Smt. Sangita Mudgal to send the legal notice. Paras 42 to 44 and 48 to 51 of the impugned judgment and decree read as under:-
(3.) IN view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Caveat No.135/2011 Since no one appears for the caveator and the main appeal is disposed of, caveat is also disposed of having become infructuous. CM No.3207/2011 Since the main appeal is disposed of, the application is also disposed of having become infructuous.