PUSHPINDER SINGH Vs. RAJIV PRASHER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 14487-C of 2014

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although an FIR No. 35 dated 03.02.2004 registered against the appellantdefendant No. 1 in Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib had resulted in his conviction but the appeal against the same is pending, therefore, the findings of the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside. He contends that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that in a vigilance enquiry, which has been held against the departmental officials, apart from the appellant-defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1- plaintiff has also been found to be guilty. Thus, the assertions made in the affidavit, which resulted in the publication of the news item dated 11.02.2004, are not incorrect. He, thus, contends that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside and the suit of the respondents-plaintiff dismissed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments but do not find any merit in the assertions as put forth by him.