KAMALINI MANMADE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Union of India and five others to recover Rs. 1 lac as and by way of damages for defamation. The plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, may briefly be stated; On or about October 20, 1956, a telephone directory was published at the instance of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in which against the telephone number and name of the plaintiff the following entry appeared in bold letters 'Miss Prostitution Solicitor' on page 138 thereof. In respect of this entry, which was prima facie defamatory of the plaintiff, a suit, being Suit No. 30 of 1958 was instituted by the plaintiff against the Union of India (present defendant No. 1) and Shri P.M. Agarwala (present defendant No. 2). In that suit the plaintiff: claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 as and by way of damages for defamation for the said entry in the public telephone directory. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (who were also defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in that suit) filed their written statements but they pleaded an apology for the entry having appeared in the telephone directory through inadvertence and raised contentions in mitigation of the quantum of damages claimed by the plaintiff. It appeal's that the suit was heard on September 20/21, 1961, by Mr. Justice K.K. Desai and on these dates evidence of the plaintiff in chief was recorded. The suit was thereafter adjourned and it again came up on Board before the same learned Judge and was heard for three days viz. on October 10, 11 and 12, 1961, and the case was adjourned to October 16, 1961, on which day arguments were advanced on both the sides before the learned Judge and the suit was adjourned to the following day. It may be stated that defendants, Nos. 5 and 6 were the attorney and counsel representing defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in that case. On October 17, 1961, when the suit reached hearing at about 1.55 p.m. defendant No. 6 instructed by defendant No. 5 applied for an adjournment of the hearing of the suit by making a statement to the Court that their clients (meaning defendants Nos. 1 and 2) had evidence in their possession about certain facts viz. that the plaintiff was a divorcee, that she had been divorced by her husband on the ground of unchastity and immorality and that the plaintiff had a daughter, who had been married to one Bhavsav, but the plaintiff wanted her daughter to live with some other person. These facts were stated to the learned Judge for the purpose of getting an adjournment of the hearing of the suit since such evidence of the type mentioned by defendant No. 6 to the learned Judge would have gone a long way to mitigate the quantum of the damages that had been claimed by the plaintiff in, that suit,

(2.) (Note: At this stage the plaintiff requests that she may be permitted to leave the Court. Permission granted.).

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 5 and 6 have by their written statements 'raised several contentions by way of defence to the suit. In the first place, it has been contended by them that the alleged defamatory statements for which they are sought to be held liable were uttered in the ordinary course of a judicial proceeding and in the course of conduct of such proceeding and that, therefore, they were uttered on an occasion which the law regards as absolutely privileged and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. In the alternative, it has been contended by them that in making the alleged defamatory statements referred to in the plaint, they acted reasonably and in bona fide discharge of their duties as attorney and counsel in good faith without any malice towards the plaintiff and on instructions from their clients, and that, therefore, the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. They have further contended that the plaintiff has not set out with precision or certainty the exact defamatory words alleged to have been spoken in Court on October 17, 1961, and that therefore, in the absence of such precise words spoken being stated with demureness the suit is liable to be dismissed. In their written, statements both these defendants have set out in great detail under what circumstances they made the application for adjournment to the Court on October 17, 1961, and how they had taken reasonable precautions and care before the alleged defamatory statements were uttered in Court and they have also set out in detail as to what exactly transpired in the Court on October 17, 1961 before the learned Judge. These defendants have also raised several other defences to the suit, which it is not necessary to set out in detail here. Rest of the defendants have also filed their written statements and have raised various contentions; in particular they have adopted all the legal contentions which have been raised by defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in their written statements pertaining to the occasion being absolutely privileged or at any rate one of qualified privilege.