RAJINDRA KISHORE SAHI Vs. DURGA SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Deoria reversing that of the First Additional Munsif, Deoria and dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs 500 from the defendant-- respondent as damages for slander. The plaintiff appellant Rajindra Kishore Sahi is a practicing lawyer of Deoria and that the defendant respondent Durga Sahi is his pattidar. The relations between them have been bad, and a number of proceedings, civil and criminal, have been fought between them. In 1959 the dispute led to proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and there were two cross-cases. In one of them the plaintiff-appellant and his brother were the accused, (State v. Ravindra Kishore Sahi and others) and in the other the defendant respondent Durga Sahi and his party were the accused. The case against the plaintiff-appellant was heard on 6-2-1959 and Durga Sahi gave evidence as a prosecution witness.

(2.) THE trial court believed the plaintiff-appellant and disbelieved the respondent, and held that the respondent did make the statements imputed to him. It also held that the abatements were false and defamatory of the appellant. It further held that the statements were not privileged as they were volunteered and, not made in reply to the question put to the respondent in cross-examination. It held that the appellant was entitled to recover damages from the respondent and awarded a decree of Rs. 500. On appeal the learned Additional Civil Judge agreed with the trial court teat the respondent did make the statements alleged against him and that they were defamatory, but held that no action for defamation lay against the respondent as the statements were made by him as a witness, in judicial proceedings and were absolutely privileged. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has come here in second appeal.

(3.) THIS case involves the question of defining the limits to the doctrine of absolute privilege as regards statements made by a witness on oath in judicial proceedings for which he is subsequently sued for defamation. Under the English Law the following statements are absolutely privileged, so that no action will lie in respect of them, however false, defamatory and malicious they may be:--