IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.6171 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:12.1.2009. Ravinder Kumar Gogia ..........Petitioner. Versus Ram Pal Hawaldar ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Petitioner in person. JASWANT SINGH,J. The present revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the judgements and decrees dated 20.3.2003 and 17.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Anandpur Sahib and Additional District Judge, Ropar, respectively whereby a suit for recovery on account of defamation, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court and in the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the Court and dismissed the appeal. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1600/- alongwith interest from the date of occurrence till 12.11.2000 as damages on account of his defamation by the defendant. It was alleged by the petitioner-plaintiff that on 12.11.2000 when he was going from Bus Stand Nangal to market, on the way the respondent- defendant alongwith another constable wrongfully and without any reason took him to the police station; locked him there for about an hour; abused CR NO.6171 of 2008(O&M) 2 him and subjected him to filthy language and further a sum of Rs.1200/- alongwith medicines worth Rs.400/- were snatched from him by the respondent-defendant. After his release, the petitioner-plaintiff served a notice upon respondent on 13.11.2000, which was not replied by the latter. Ultimately, the petitioner filed the suit as aforesaid. Upon notice of the suit, respondent-defendant entered appearance and contested the suit alleging that the same was neither maintainable nor competent and further false and frivolous allegations having been levelled the suit was liable to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.1600/- alongwith intrust from the defendant towards damages on account of defamation of the plaintiff?OPP. 2. Whether the suit is maintainable and is false and frivolous? OPD. 3. Relief. Both sides led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. Learned trial court on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the suit holding that in support of his case plaintiff produced one Aparna Rani as PW2 besides examining himself as PW1. PW2 Aparna Rani in her affidavit deposed that while she was going from Bus Stand Nangal to market she saw one Constable and respondent-defendant Ram Pal CR NO.6171 of 2008(O&M) 3 Hawaldar, taking the petitioner-plaintiff to the police station where he was abused and beaten up and locked up in the havalat for an hour. She also deposed that she tried to interfere but she was also abused and further supported the case of the plaintiff in her examination-in-chief. The learned trial court disbelieved her version on the ground that had she been an eye witness to the occurrence then her name must have been disclosed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the legal notice dated 13.11.2000 as well as the plaint. PW2 Aparna Rani had also admitted in her cross examination that she was also taken to police station and that sister of the plaintiff was residing in her street and neighbourhood and was a friend of hers. In her cross- examination, it was also admitted by her that she had also appeared as a witness in some other case filed by the plaintiff. It was held that the story put forth on behalf of the plaintiff was not plausible as it could not be taken to be true that in the present era a Head Constable would drag a person to the Police Station and would also take a lady to the police station in the presence of various other persons without the matter being reported to the higher officers of the police or to any other court. It was further held that it was not plausible that in a police station where several other police officers/officials would obviously be present, the defendant would keep an unknown person in the havalat for an hour without any entry being made in the DDR. The plaintiff's version was further disbelieved on the ground that he being an employee would not produce the prescription slip of the medicines worth Rs.400/-, to which he was entitled for reimbursement from his employer. It was also held by the trial court that the respondent- defendant, a Head Constable, had taken the plaintiff-petitioner to the police station and thus acted in the discharge of his duties and therefore, a notice CR NO.6171 of 2008(O&M) 4 under Section 80 CPC was also required to be served as also impleadment of the Punjab Government was necessary. Thus, the issue no.1 was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. As a result the suit was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned judgement and decree dated 20.3.2003. Aggrieved against the same petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff an argument was raised that the suit was not competent before the trial court because of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and was triable by a Court of Small Cause. The argument was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had filed a plaint before the learned trial court, led his evidence and never raised any objection that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Another argument that since the defendant had admitted the receipt of the notice dated 13.11.2002 and did not reply the same, therefore, the case of the plaintiff is deemed to have been admitted was also rejected, holding that mere non-reply of the legal notice did not amount to admission by the defendant in any manner. The next argument that the evidence of plaintiff- PW1 and that of Aparna Rani PW2 fully established the case of the plaintiff was also rejected by the learned appellate court for the reasons given in para 12 of the impugned judgement dated 17.2.2007. The learned appellate court further agreed with the findings of the trial court on the ground of non-service of notice under Section 80 CPC as also non-joinder of the Punjab Government. By passing a detailed judgement the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgement dated 17.2.2007, affirming the findings of the trial court. CR NO.6171 of 2008(O&M) 5 After hearing the petitioner-plaintiff, who is present in person, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders which may call for interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. Before parting with the judgement, it would be necessary to mention that the present revision petition has been filed after a delay of 430 days for which an application bearing CM 22204-CII of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, seeking condonation of the said delay. No sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of such long delay. Therefore, even otherwise on account of delay the revision petition is dismissed. 12.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge