(THAKUR) MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. (THAKUR) BISHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiff and defendant in the suit for damages out of which this civil appeal arises are nephew and uncle and are malguzars in the Bilaspur district and admittedly on terms of enmity. In the course of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., by the uncle Thakur Bishal Singh against one Tar Mohammad Ayub, the nephew, Thakur Manmohan Singh appeared as a witness for Tar Mohammad Ayub. In the course of his cross-examination as a witness he was asked by Thakur Bishal Singh's pleader Mr. Balaram, a leading practitioner of Bilaspur, the following question: Did you take Rs. 300 as loan from Haji Tar Mohammad Ayub during the course of the present proceedings and promise to depose for him in this case ?

(2.) IN respect of this question asked him in Court, the plaintiff has instituted a suit for damages on account of defamation against both his uncle and the pleader. The trial Court held that the question amounted to a defamatory statement but that the occasion was privileged both in respect of the pleader and his client and dismissed the suit. The learned District Judge, before whom the plaintiff lodged an appeal in respect of Thakur Bishal Singh alone as it was admitted before him that the pleader was entirely protected, came to the decision, namely that most of the High Courts in India are now agreed that a civil suit for damages for a defamatory statement made on oath or otherwise by counsel, party or witness in a judicial proceeding is governed not by Section 499, I. P. C., but by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, which must be held to be identical with the corresponding relevant rules of English Common law. The plaintiff has now preferred a second appeal. The decision of the lower appellate Court is entirely correct and I have been unable to find a single case in the reported rulings of any High Court in India where the English rule in respect of a civil suit for damages for defamation arising out of judicial proceedings is not followed, nor has any such case been cited before me. Though there was some doubt in the High Courts of Allahabad and Calcutta this doubt in those particular Courts has been set at rest by the Full Bench decision in Chuni Lal v. Narasingh Das (1918) 40 All 341 and by a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Doyal De AIR 1921 Cal 1. A party instructing his pleader is entitled to the protection afforded by the Common law as a party to the case, and an attempt has been made by the appellant before me to distinguish this particular case from the various rulings cited in so far as the matter in dispute was not one between the parties to the judicial proceedings themselves but between a party and a witness.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge seems to have fallen into some confusion of thought in considering that Mr. Balaram used the words in the heat of the moment. The question was put in a deliberate and temperate form and was admittedly put as a result of instructions received. The question could not possibly have been put in the heat of the moment. As regards the conduct of defendant 2, the present respondent, whose costs were disallowed, the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have misinterpreted the defendant's pleadings. The two points which he alleged, the taking of a loan in the proceedings and the enmity between the parties resulting in the plaintiff's appearing against the defendant on numerous occasions, have been accepted as proved and to say that the question was put or caused to be put without any justification is grotesque. Thakur Bishal Singh, in my opinion, was particularly justified in refusing to express his regret and had there been any cross objection in respect of the costs which were disallowed, it would certainly have succeeded. The suit is one which should not have been brought at all and the appeal is dismissed with costs.