TA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU ^ SinaleBenchj:Hon9bleShriDiiipRaosahebDesh^ ^ ':^^ Appeliant PSamtiff Second Apoeai No.316 of2007 Dr; B. Adi Narayana S/o Late B. Parsaiya Aged about 76 years, R/o Laxmi Nilayam Jariki Road, Padum Nagar, Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) versus Respondent Defendant N. Laxmi Narayana S/o N. Narsimhiu, Aged about 52 years, R/o Indira Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Second ADpeal under Section lOOoftheCode ofCivi! Procedure. 1908 Present : Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the appeilant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22nd August, 2007) Heard on admission. (2) The appelianVplaintiff is aggrieved bythejudgmentdated 13-04-2007 passed by the 11 Additiona! District Judge (F.T.C.), Durg in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2005 whereby the judgment dated 25-06-2005 passed by the 7th Civil Judge Ciass-il, Durg in Civil Suit No.52-A/2002 dismissing the piaintiff's suit for damages on account of defamation was affirmed. (3) The sole point urged by iearned counsel for the appeliant/piaintiff is that both the Courts below have erred in rejecting the testimony of the appeilanVplaintiff soleiy on the ground that no independent witness present at the meetingwas examined. "^. • "' ^> •^ Tumane ii-U -^fc (4) Having considered thesubmission made by learned counsel for the appellanVplaintiff, 1 have pemsed the impugned judgmenyirt view of the fact that the respondent/defendant had led evidence in rebuttal toshow that no such defamatory words.were used againstthe appellant/plaintiff, the triai Court asaiso the lowei- appellate Courtwere whollyjustified in disbelieving the testimony of the appellant/plaintiff for wantof independent corroboration anddismissing the plasntiffs suit (5) In my consider^d opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which Js accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ; Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh '^,, ^'.^/l/ •:^'}/"~- '. ••'•