IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 RSA.No. 288 of 2010() --------------------- AS.91/2007 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.513/2006 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... (S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------------------- 1. K.V.BALAN,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.T.KUNHAMBU MASTER, "BLOSSOMS" NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. REMA SHYLAJA, AGED 55 YEARS W/O.K.V.BALAN, 'BLOSSOMS", NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUBHADRA THOTTAHIL AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. P.M.BALACHANDRAN,RETIRED HEAD NURSE, C-6, SANTHI NAGAR COLOCY, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.288 OF 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The plaintiffs who had the suit dismissed and confirmed in the appeal are the appellants. 2. The first plaintiff is a retired police officer, who claims to enjoy good reputation in the society. Second plaintiff is his wife. The defendant is a resident of Santhi Nagar Colony in Kozhikode, wherein the plaintiff also reside. According to the allegations, while first plaintiff was working as Circle Inspector of Police, the defendant had lodged a false complaint against him on the basis of which a Crime No.63/92 was registered before the Medical College Police Station. She misusing the position of nurse of the medical college hospital had exerted influence to get crime registered. The intention was only to defame the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, statements given by the defendant to the police, are defamatory, which caused loss of reputation to the plaintiffs. Case was registered against plaintiffs was attempt committed to murder, causing injury, threat etc. After investigation the case was referred by the police . As a result of the act committed by the defendant the plaintiff suffered loss of reputation and mental agony. There was no basis of the allegations made by the defendant. On the basis of these allegations the suit was claimed R.S.A.NO.288 OF 2010 2 Rs.25,000/- as damages in respect of each of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant resisted the suit. One of the contentions was that the suit was barred by limitation. It is also contended that suit was barred by res judicata and estoppal. The cause of action in the present suit is identical to the one in the earlier suit which was not pursued. It is contended that first plaintiff was punished while in service for his misconduct and thereafter the suit was filed. Various other statements are made which are not very relevant for the present case. Suffice to say that defendant contended that she was not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff. 4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 & 2 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendant had D.W.1 examined and Exts.B1 and B12 were marked. Exts.X1 series are marked. The trial court found that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court also found that the accused were discharged on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court popularly known as 'Common Law Cases' and it could not said that they were acquitted. The court also found that a departmental enquiry was conducted regarding the conduct of the first plaintiff. It could not be said that any defamatory statement was made by the defendant. The suit was R.S.A.NO.288 OF 2010 3 dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal as A.S.91/2007. The appellate court independently considered evidence on record. The appellate court though found that the suit was not barred by limitation, held that plaintiffs were unable to substantiate the allegation. Accordingly the appeal was also dismissed. 5. Both the courts below have considered the evidence in considerable detail. Strictly speaking it is difficult to accept the findings of the lower appellate court regarding the plea of limitation. The reliance placed on Sec.14 of the Limitation Act does not appear to be correct on facts of the case. Both the courts found that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their allegations and that the evidence was totally insufficient to enter a finding in favour of the plaintiffs. The findings are essentially based on facts and there is nothing to show that the findings are either perverse or unwarranted on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The result is that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Appeal. This R.S.A. is without any merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE cms