PRADIP KUMAR MITRA Vs. LIPI BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit for libel is instituted by Dr. Pradip Kumar Mitra holding the post of Director of Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research (in short IPGMER) in Kolkata against his sister-in-law for damages to the tune of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The mother-in-law of the plaintiff, Smt. Abha Rani Ghosh aged about 75 years is widow and living with the plaintiff. The father-in-law of the plaintiff, Manindra Kumar Ghosh died on June 4, 2003. The defendant no.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant Lipi") is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff. The husband of the defendant Lipi is also doctor by profession. It is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had to look after his mother-in-law as the defendant Lipi and her husband did not take up the responsibility to look after the mother-in-law. The defendant no.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant Lekha") is the wife of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the said defendant Lekha in the instant suit.

(2.) The mother-in-law of the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.9 of 2012 against her two daughters - the defendant Lipi and the defendant Lekha before Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Sealdah (hereinafter referred to as "the Civil Court at Sealdah") praying for declaration that her husband executed his last Will and testament on November 15, 1983, by which he bequeathed his dwelling house situated at Premises No.25, Snuff Mills Street, P.S. Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 in her favour. The defendant Lekha supported the case made out by her mother in Title Suit No.9 of 2012, whereas the defendant Lipi contested the said suit by filing written statement. The copy of the said written statement was served on the defendant Lekha in the address where the plaintiff has been residing with his wife - the defendant lekha and his mother-in-law at Premises No.213/1, EE, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091. It is alleged that the defendant Lipi has made false and defamatory statement against the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the said written statement, though the plaintiff is not a party to the said Title Suit No.9 of 2012. The defendant Lipi has described the plaintiff in the said written statement as a person of dubious ethics, who persuaded his father-in-law to invest Rs.75,000/- in the business of his wife and who also persuaded his mother-in-law to institute Title Suit in the Civil Court at Sealdah in order to grab the dwelling house of his father-in-law since deceased. The defendant Lipi has also pleaded in the said written statement that the plaintiff led luxurious life and sent his two sons abroad for study by earning money from unaccounted sources.

(3.) One Soumendra Nath Kundu, Personal Assistant attached to the plaintiff when he served as Director of IPGMER, Kolkata, came to learn from one Utpal Chakraborty, Learned Advocate about the written statement filed by the defendant Lipi in the Title Suit pending before the Civil Court at Sealdah. It is contended by the plaintiff that the said Soumendra Nath Kundu had gone through the written statement while the same was kept in the custody of Learned Advocate Mr. Utpal Chakraborty in the High Court at Calcutta and the contents of the same being derogatory to the dignity of the plaintiff, were communicated to the plaintiff in writing. The statements made by the defendant Lipi in the written statement before Civil Court at Sealdah have lowered down the dignity of the plaintiff in the estimation of his colleagues and members of the society and those statements have cast aspersion on the high reputation of the plaintiff holding dignified post in a Government Organisation. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant Lekha being the wife of the plaintiff is running her own business of pathological centre and has independent source of income and as such the false allegations made by the defendant Lipi in the written statement filed before the Civil Court at Sealdah have lowered down the reputation of the plaintiff in the eye of public. The cause of action for filing the present suit arose both within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta and outside the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. So, the plaintiff has instituted this suit before this Court praying for decree for Rs.1,10,00,000/- against the defendant Lipi.