M N ROY Vs. SNEHASIS BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against order 9th July, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench of City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 783 of 1998.

(2.) Opposite party, Sri Snehasis Bagchi, filed a suit for defamation and consequential reliefs against the present two petitioners. In the said suit it was alleged that the plaintiff was appointed by defendant No. 2 as Assistant Caretaker on a temporary post on 10.9.1993. On 2nd February,,, 1994 the plaintiff was transferred from the Office at Beliaghata to the Office of the Bureau of Investigation at 10, Madan Street, Calcutta-700 072 vide office order No. 15665 dated 25.1.1994. While working as Assistant Caretaker plaintiff detected certain malpractices and raised protests incurring displeasure of the Darwans and Night Guards. In the interest of the office administration the plaintiff couragiously put up the matter before defendant No. 1 over and again since 9th July, 1996 resting with his letter dated 13th February,,, 1997 for safety grounds. The sub-ordinate staff were trying to take vengeance upon the petitioner at the indulgence of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 who inspite of being told about the illegal and irregular activities of the Darwans and Night Guards remained indifferent. Plaintiff made several applications for leave since 4.2.1997 before defendant No. 1 but the latter remained silent. In response to an urgent call relating to serious illness of his aunt, the plaintiff had to leave office on 14.2.1997 at about 3.25 P.M. verbally intimating the same to defendant No. 1 and also giving intimation in writing. Taking advantage of helpless situation of the plaintiff, a plot was hatched against him to take disciplinary action describing a note as an act of 'Sheer Stupidity' and served the notice through departmental peon and the matter was circulated to the whole office lowering the prestige and dignity of the plaintiff in the estimation of the public. Defendant No. 1 rejected the leave application of the plaintiff behind his back and the order dated 6th March, 1997 described the statement of the petitioner as "not only untrue but patently dishonest". All such communications were made by departmental process through peons before the office staff thereby lowering the dignity of the plaintiff in the estimation of the public. Both the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 being annoyed with the plaintiff for unearthing the illegal activities by pointing out how the Government premises were being misused by the unauthorised persons threatened the plaintiff that his services would be allowed any promotion. The malice against the plaintiff was apparent on the face of the record and he was transferred from Bureau of Investigation to the Office of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Salt Lake until further order. Plaintiff by his letter dated 21.4.1997 claimed Rs. 3 lacs as damages for defamation for his monetary loss and mental agony plus mesne profits including damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per diem since 4.2.1997 till the realisation of the damages amounting to Rs. 72,000/- plus loss of pay at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and cost of the suit amounting to a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Such suit was filed after service of statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the cause of action arose at 10, Madan Street, Calcutta-700 072 on 4.2.1997 and 21.2.1997 at Calcutta.

(3.) In the said suit the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint. It was alleged that defendants No. 1 & 2 being official authorities passed the order and made remarks in the official capacity and such office order was communicated by departmental process through a peon. So by any stretch of imagination the said remarks could not constitute defamation. Defendants No. 1 & 2 further alleged in the said application that the order passed or the remarks made against the false statement of the plaintiff was dealt with officially and was not made public as alleged. The official acts on the part of the defendants in relation to the plaintiff could not amount to libel or defamation. Defendants further stated that the documents, as referred to in the plaint, and privileged communications sent from a public servant to a public servant in discharge of official duties. Defendants thus, claimed that plaint did not disclose any cause of action and so, prayed for rejection of the same.