K S ALPHONS Vs. V N VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for damages for defamation alleging that certain publications made in various news papers and in a press release signed by respondents 1 to 3 contain imputations that are defamatory as against him in his acts while he was functioning as the District Collector at Kottayam and thereafter as Secretary to Higher Education and that having been an IAS Officer of integrity, who had held several responsible posts and a public figure as member of Legislative Assembly, the defamatory imputations have damnified him and the allegations so made against him being highly defamatory, require to be compensated by way of damages. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing Ext. P9 order passed by the Court below refusing to mark certain documents, which the petitioner / plaintiff wanted to get marked in the affidavit filed by him in lieu of chief examination.

(2.) It is submitted that the Court below also has directed the petitioner to file fresh affidavit deleting the portions wherein such documents are marked, upholding the objections raised by the defendants to the effect that those are not documents which the petitioner / plaintiff is competent to prove and get marked in his examination.

(3.) It is one thing to say that a document cannot be marked and it is another thing to say that the document lacks proof. The case of the petitioner / plaintiff is that the statements appearing in the documents sought to be got marked, which are certain news papers and a press release, are defamatory to him. When he produced those documents and desires them to be got marked, the defendants have no right to object to the marking of those documents, as necessarily, it is part of his pleadings. Furnishing proof of the publications having so appeared and proving as to who are all responsible for the said publications are matters to be established on evidence. It goes without saying that the documents which the petitioner / plaintiff sought to be got marked, if marked, are not proof of those documents and proof of those documents, its publications, etc. are to be furnished by examining those persons, who are competent to swear to its publication and as to who all are the persons responsible for such publications. It is for the petitioner /plaintiff, if so advised, to examine such of the witnesses, who are competent to prove those marked documents and establish its publication, the probative value thereof and also to establish as to who are responsible for those publications. The marking of those documents cannot wait till such competent witnesses, to prove those documents, are summoned, as the petitioner / plaintiff will have to give evidence with reference to the publications, which he has produced as part of his pleadings.