R.S.A No.3124 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : August 03, 2009 1. R.S.A No.3124 of 2008 Dharamvir Malik vs Ajit Singh Rathi and others. 2. R.S.A No.3123 of 2008 Dharamvir Malik vs Om Pal Singh and others, *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.3123 and 3124 of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.3124 of 2008. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for damages on account of defamation. The following questions have been raised :- “ 1. Whether the learned Additional District Judge could accept the application under Order XLI Rule 27 moved on behalf of the appellants for production of R.S.A No.3124 of 2008 ::2:: additional evidence and decide the appeal thereafter, without affording an opportunity to the present appellants for leading evidence in rebuttal ? 2. Whether the documents taken on record by way of additional evidence could have been so taken on record without proving them in accordance with law and on account of the documents having not been proved as per law, the same are non-est ? 3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court has gone beyond the evidence brought on record while pronouncing the impugned judgment ? 4. Whether respondents No.1 and 2 could absolve themselves of publishing defamatory news item in their paper by simply saying that before such publication, they had tried to contact the Education Officer, Panipat who, however, was not available ? 5. Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to damages as awarded by the learned trial Court ?” I find that the learned lower appellate Court has noticed that in the news item itself the version of the appellant was duly recorded. I asked counsel for the appellant to show a copy of the news item and a perusal thereof reveals this fact to be corroborated. Counsel for the appellant has argued that this fact has not influenced the learned lower appellate Court, rather it was influenced by additional evidence which had been allowed to be led without giving any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the witness. I, however, find that the additional evidence deals only with R.S.A No.3124 of 2008 ::3:: official documents which, otherwise, substantiate the news regarding large scale bungling having been committed in the evaluation center of which the appellant was the incharge. In my opinion, no cross-examination on the merits could have been targeted at the official who produced these documents. Thus, questions No.1, 2 and 3 are held against the appellant. As regards question No.4, it has been found that the news item not only records the version of the District Education Officer but the version of the appellant was also taken. The answer to question No.5 could only be returned in favour of the appellant if it had been established that in fact the reporting was false. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'