IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1855 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 10, 2008 Baljit Dhaliwal ....Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed suit for recovery of Rs. Ten Lacs as compensation for damages caused to him. The suit was decreed by holding that he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each from Darshan Singh and Gurdip Singh-defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively and Rs. 50,000/- from Baljit Dhaliwal-defendant. The said judgment and decree, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul on 1.2.2006, was challenged by the defendant-appellant by filing an appeal, which was, however, dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda on 17.3.2008. Aggrieved of the same, she has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Hazara Singh, who was alleged to have given the newspaper for reading purposes, was not Regular Second Appeal No. 1855 of 2008 -2- examined. Further that, the news item did not contain the name of the plaintiff. It was also submitted that no criteria while granting compensation was fixed by the learned lower Courts. Lastly, it was submitted that in the absence of the Editor of the newspaper being arrayed as one of the defendants, no liability could be imposed upon the appellant, who was only a correspondent of the newspaper in question. It has been found as a matter of fact that specific mention was made in the news item of the name of Ranjit Singh-plaintiff. The news item in question lowered his reputation in the estimation of others. The examination of Hazara Singh, who was said to have given the newspaper for the reading purposes, was not required so as to prove that the defamatory material was circulated/published. It is not in dispute that the newspaper in question is a daily newspaper and having sufficient circulation in the area. Mere fact that the Editor of the newspaper has not been made a party-defendant by the plaintiff-respondent was no ground to absolve the defendant-appellant from the liability. The news item in question was published at the instance of the appellant. It is not denied by her that she was correspondent of the newspaper in question. In cases relating to defamation, it is extremely difficult to determine the pecuniary worth of the damage caused as a result thereof. When it stands proved that the plaintiff-respondent was holding landed Regular Second Appeal No. 1855 of 2008 -3- property in the village and an educated person, besides, son of a former Sarpanch, one can well imagine the damage caused to his reputation on account of publication of the defamatory material. Responsibility was on the shoulders of the defendant-appellant to verify the material before giving it for publication. Under these circumstances, even if no criteria had been fixed yet the awarding of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the plaintiff from the defendant-appellant was in order. The findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. No illegality or infirmity can be found in the same. These findings are not liable to be reversed on the basis of the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, and that too, in a second appeal. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 10, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO