C.S. No. 246 of 2013. Case: Pradip Kumar Mitra Vs Lipi Basu and Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | C.S. No. 246 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sudip Deb, Saunak Sengupta, Paritosh Sinha and Debayan Sen, Advs. and For Respondents: Shuvasish Sengupta, Soumyajit Mishra and Balarko Sen, Advs. |
| Judges | R.K. Bag, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 11(d); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 35, 60; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 499 |
| Judgement Date | March 10, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
R.K. Bag, J.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The defendant Lipi has contested this suit by filing written statement wherein she has denied and disputed the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant Lipi, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The contention of the defendant Lipi is that the plaintiff has no cause of action against her for institution of the suit for libel. The defendant Lipi reiterates that the averments made by her in paragraph 10 of her written statement filed before the Civil Court at Sealdah are correct and she will prove the correctness of the facts pleaded by her by adducing evidence during trial before the said Civil Court at Sealdah. It is alleged that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit in order to create pressure on the defendant Lipi and to prevent her from proving the statements made by her in paragraph 10 of the written statement by adducing evidence before the Civil Court at Sealdah. The contention of the defendant Lipi is that she has not made any false allegation against the plaintiff and there is no possibility of causing any injury to the reputation and the character of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. The further contention of the defendant Lipi is that the contents of the written statement have not been disclosed to any outsider as alleged by the plaintiff for creating cause of action for institution of the present suit. According to the defendant Lipi, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
-
On the above pleadings the issues framed by the Court are recast as follows:
(i) Has this Court territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?
(ii) Are the averments made in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by the defendant Lipi in connection with Title Suit No. 9 of 2012 before Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Sealdah amount to libel of the plaintiff?
(iii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree for Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as prayed for?
(iv) Is the plaintiff entitled to get other reliefs?
-
Issue No. (i): The plaintiff has made out a case in the pleading that the defendant Lipi has made false and malicious allegations against the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by her in connection with Title Suit No. 9 of 2012 instituted by the mother-in-law of the plaintiff against the said defendant Lipi and her sister - the defendant Lekha, which is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court at Sealdah. The plaintiff has pleaded in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the copy of the said written statement of Title Suit No. 9 of 2012 was served on the defendant Lekha on October 29, 2013 at Premises No. 213/1, EE, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 wherein the plaintiff resides with his wife - the defendant Lekha and his mother-in-law. The above premises at Salt Lake is outside the original jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. The plaintiff has stated both in the pleading and in evidence that the friends, employees and associates of the plaintiff came to know about the allegations made by the defendant Lipi in the written statement filed before the Civil Court at Sealdah. However, the plaintiff has candidly admitted during his cross-examination in reply to question No. 194, 200 and 201 that he has not disclosed the name of any such friend or employee or associate in the plaint. In the absence of disclosure of any name of friend or employee or associate of the plaintiff in the pleading it is well-nigh impossible for me to hold that the statements made in the written statement by the defendant Lipi in connection with Title Suit No. 9 of 2012 were communicated to any of the friends or employee or associates of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated in reply to question No. 227 during cross-examination that his colleagues like Dr. Sailendra Nath Pal, Dr. Snehangshu Banerjee and some of the residents who are residing near the house of father-in-law of the plaintiff including one Shusobhon Ghosh came to know about the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant Lipi before the Civil Court at Sealdah in connection with Title Suit No. 9 of 2012. In the absence of examination of any of these persons as witness of the plaintiff before this Court, the evidence of the plaintiff to the effect that he came to learn about distribution and circulation of the written statement filed by the defendant Lipi from his colleagues, will go down as hearsay evidence as the said evidence is clearly barred under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act.
-
The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in paragraph 12 of the plaint that one Soumendra Nath Kundu, the colleague of the plaintiff saw the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant Lipi in connection with Title Suit No. 9 of 2012 in the custody of one Utpal...
To continue reading
Request your trial