CHAITANYADEV SURENDRASINH ZALA Vs. VAJESANG BANESANG DODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present First Appeal has been preferred under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated April 27, 2001 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 35 of 1997.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(3.) THE learned advocate Mr. Satyen Raval appearing for the appellant -plaintiff has exhaustively made his submissions, where his entire emphasis was that the dignity and reputation of the plaintiff have been seriously and severely jeopardised by preferring false complaint against him by the defendant. His sending such applications to different offices of various dignitaries has further damaged the reputation and image of the plaintiff and, more particularly, when the written application is outrightly false, it would give rise to the suit for damages on the ground of defamation. He further urged that the allegation of the kind that three licensed weapons were held by the plaintiff, out of which due to general elections, one weapon was surrendered and no proof is given about the three alleged weapons, and hence, such version is not substantiated. He admitted that an agreement was entered into between the father of the defendant and the plaintiff and a Rojkam to that effect has been drawn. There were certain terms to be observed by the defendant and they were to carry out construction of a compound wall in the area of 12.27 sq.yds. subject to the conditions laid down in the said Rojkam. The said parcel of land was to be sold by the plaintiff subject to fulfillment of these conditions. The breach made by the defendant led to demolition of the wall at the instance of the plaintiff, which gave rise to creation of false documents. He emphasized relying on various authorities on the subject that it is not for the plaintiff to prove that the words are false, if they are defamatory, they are assumed to be false and it is for the defendant, if he seeks to justify to prove that they are substantially true.