S-17 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 593/2010 Plaintiff ARUN AGRAWAl. ; Sh. A. Rasheed Qureshi, Advocate, versus M/S SHASHl K GARG & CO AND OTHERS Defendants Through ; Nemo. ToN'S^E MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT ORDER 29.07.2010 1. The suit was listed on several dates, i.e.. 05.04.2010, 12.04.2010 and 23.04.2010; tire Court was not satisfied as to the maintainability of the suit and had directed the platntiff s counsel to file written submissions. 2. The plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by what are termed as illegal and libelous publications of scurrilous material which has tarnished or tended to lower his reputation before the public. Though the suit is not appropriately framed since it does not contain specific averments with regard to the cause of action and limitation, the gist of the plaintiffs case may be found in paras 25 and 26, which are extracted below: •XYXOT Txmx xmxT 25 The plaintiff humbly submits that he has suffered extensive damage due to the malafide presentation of the unauthorized Special Audit Report by the Defendants, and their accomplices which is continuing. It has been recognized by the Apex Court that the reputation of a person is a valuable asset for him just as in law the good will of a firm is an intangible asset. Lord Krishna said to Arjuna "for self-respecting man, death is preferable to dishonor, " the Gita, Chapter-2, Shloka-34 (Som Mittal v. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) SCC 753). 26. That the Plaintiff humbly submits that extensive damages have been suffered by him on account of such dishonoring of his glorious persona nationally and internationally directly due to the evil acts and ill designs of the Defendant/s. The Plaintiff quantifies the same at Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) as a small token of the unimaginable loss of his honor and reputation which is priceless. Every living day has become a suffocating process for the Plaintiff and a horrifying experience for him tofind his words carrying hardly any weight as compared to the past during this period when he has been compelled to Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified meet the challenge of vindicating of his honor prett)' unquestioned for the hell that they let loose on the Plaintiff abusing an office of trust, breaching that trust and therefore, deserving serious censure for their hideous acts causing unmeasured agony and misery to the innocent Plaintiff and his family comprising of octogenarian pcirents, one of them being the founder of the Association WASME himself The abusive use to which the said Report M'as put as a collusive, pre-planne conspiracy to harass, defame and hotind the Petitioner and family, is shown by way of a detailed note enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-P-18. Further, the Plaintiff has also suffered inteiest, I finance charges etc. on credit card and bank loan used by him to meet the expense resulting only due to the said malafide presentation of the said unauthorized report of by Defendants which he estimates at present at Rupees 2,50,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). xxxxxx XXXXXX XXXXXX" 3 The plaintiff, in the previous portions of tlie suit adverts to certain resolutions and actions by the defendant society and its office bearers in the years 2005 and 2006. The libel on which the suit is premised is said to he a Special Audit Report published allegedly unauthorisedly on behalf of defendants, on 24.03.2007. It also appears that the plaintiff has instituted another suit, i.e. CS (OS) 2004/2007 on the file of this Court, seeking other reliefs. The suit has been alluded to in the previous proceedings of the Court. The present suit significantly is silent as to the averment that it has been filed within the period of limitation. 4. Being a claim for damages, based on defamation, the applicable period of limitation is as ascribed in Article 75 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. The same reads as follows: "XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 75. For compensation for libel One year When the libel is published XTTXT jccmx Txmx" 5. In this case, the suit averments clearly disclose that the publication of the libel, i.e. written words is said to be embodied in the Special Audit Report, which allegedly casts aspersions on the plaintiff and his conduct. The plaintiff claims to be injured by it. On an application of Article 75, the claim for damages ought to have been filed within one year. of the publication, i.e, before 23.03.2008. The present suit was instituted in January 2010. It is tlierefore, clearly time-barred. This apart, the plaintiff has not disclosed as to why it did not include the present claim in tire previously instituted suit, in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The averments are that the earlier suit, being CS (OS) 2004/2007 was instituted on 03.10.2007, i.e. after the cause of action for the present suit occurred, yet, for inexplicable reasons, the plaintiff did not seek leave to execute the present cause of action in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 6. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the suit is. barred in law on both the grounds, i.e. ground of limitation as well as by virtue of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The suit is accordingly rejected. S. RAVINDRA BIIAT,J JULY 29,2010 'ajk' iS