JAGMAL Vs. SANDHYA DAINIK TAJE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant is in the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below.

(2.) Plaintiff through the present suit for recovery had sought damages and compensation amounting to Rs.4,00,000.00 against the newspaper for publishing malicious article (news report).

(3.) Both the Courts on examination of the evidence have found that the plaintiff has failed to lead sufficient evidence to prove the damages/compensation to which he is entitled to. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 but did not examine any other witness. At the time of admission of the present appeal, as proposed by the learned counsel, following substantial questions of law were framed:-