SUBAL KUMAR DEY Vs. HARERAM DEBNATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 01.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dismissing the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and parties.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit on 5.2.2009. This was a suit for damages and compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,100/ -. The allegation in the suit was that the plaintiff was a retired government servant and follows a particular religious belief. Smt. Sanhita Devi was one of the main disciples of the original head of the Cult being followed by the plaintiff. Unfortunately, Sanhita Devi was murdered at Kolkata on 16.4.2011. According to the plaintiff, after this assassination news items appeared in two newspapers 'Syandan Patrika' & 'Ajkal' which were defamatory. The editor of the Syandan Patrika was made party as defendant No. 2 in the suit. The petitioner claims to be the editor of Syandan Patrika and has filed the present petition.

(3.) MR . R. Dutta placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in CRP No. 78 of 2008 (Subal Kumar Dey Vs. Sri Amarendra Kar Purkayastha and others) wherein in a similar matter the suit for compensation has been filed against the two different sets of defendants. This Court had held that the publication of a news item in a separate newspaper gives a separate cause of action and they cannot be combined. This Court had also held that the plaintiff would have to file separate suits against each of the newspapers or set of the editors and publishers of the newspapers and though the authors, the editors and the publishers of the newspapers joined in one suit but if similar news items have appeared in separate newspapers each gives rise to a separate cause of action for which separate suit has to be filed. However, it would be pertinent to mention that in that judgment this Court had observed as follows: