VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. R VAIYANAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aggrieved plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition against the order dated 8.1.2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff filed a suit against 3 defendants directing them to pay either jointly or severally Rs.1,50,000 as damages. THE plaintiff is the Manager and Secretary of Jayavilas Hindu Elementary School at Manthikulam Village and it is a reputed institution and is catering to the needs of the village. It was established around 75 years ago by the grandfather of the plaintiff and it is run by the plaintiff as Manager cum Secretary. THE plaintiff is also functioning as the State Vice President of Mahila Congress. She was to go to various Government Offices in connection with her political and social service activities. THE defendants are all living in the same village. THE 3rd defendant is working as a Nutritious Food Scheme Organiser in the plaintiff's school and he was not allowed to do certain unlawful activities in the school. 1st and 2nd defendants are friends and relatives of the 3rd defendant. THE 2nd defendant tried to get his wife appointed as the Nutritious Food Scheme Assistant in the School and the plaintiff expressed her inability as the appointing authority is the Block Development Officer. THE defendants have conspired with the intention of defaming the plaintiff and have written a letter to the District Collector, Tuticorin District during November, 2001 falsely alleging that the plaintiff is attempting to transfer one Meenaakshi working as the Nutritious Food Scheme Assistant in the school and is trying to appoint the wife of one Ramasamy @ Rajan in that place by taking Rs.10,000 from him. THE letter was signed by the 1st defendant describing himself as the President of the Village Committee. THE plaintiff came to know the said letter when she had been to the office of the District Collector in November, 2001. He had also written letter to the same effect to the Commissioner of Vilathikulam Panchayat Union by giving copies to the District Collector. THE statement given by the 1st defendant is not true and they are making false propaganda in the village as if the plaintiff has received Rs.10,000 from the said Ramasamy for posting his wife in the school after transferring the said Meenakshi. She had suffered untold mental agony due to the false defamatory statements made by the defendants. She has been injured in her personnel character and reputation and lowered down in the estimate of the public. She has filed the suit claiming damages. THE learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, gave a finding that the suit cannot be taken to file and struck off the plaint. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present revision petition.

(3.) THE plaintiff has come forward with a specific case that the 1st defendant had sent a letter to the higher authorities alleging that the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.10,000 for giving on appointment to one person by transferring another person form the post. THE plaintiff had also filed the copy of the letter sent by the 1st defendant. Apart from that, the plaintiff had also sent notice to all the defendants and having received the same, none of them had sent any reply. Para 11 of the plaint relating to cause of action also indicates that the cause of action arose in November, 2001 when the defendants sent the letter to the District Collector containing false and slanderous imputation about the plaintiff. THE plaint can be struck off only under the categories mentioned underO.7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. It has not been invoked by the Court below and it is also not a reason that there was no cause of action claimed damages for Rs.1,50,000 and the burden is only upon her to prove her reputation has come down in the Society. Now, admittedly, the 1st defendant alone had sent the letter containing defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff contended that defendants 2 and 3 have also conspired, now in the absence of any material, the suit cannot be taken on file against defendants 2 and 3. However, there is sufficient cause of action to proceed against the 1st defendant.