:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2007 .......................................................... Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearance, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and orders Registrar’s orders .......................................................... Mr. Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Advocate appearing for the Appellant/Original Plaintiff. 2. According to the case of the Appellant, a letter was written by the Second Defendant at the instance of the First and Third Defendants in the name of the Appellant which was opened by the Appellant’s husband. The contention of the Appellant is that the contents of the letter are per-se defamatory. Therefore, a suit for compensation was filed by the Appellant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. An Appeal preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed. The Trial Court :2: held that the Appellant has failed to establish that the said letter was written by the Second Respondent. The Trial Court also held that there was no publication of the said letter. The said findings have been confirmed by the Appellate Court in the Appeal preferred by the Appellant. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellant is that it was an inland letter which was received by the Appellant’s husband. He submitted that the Appellant’s husband naturally opened it and therefore, this itself is sufficient to constitute its publication. 4. It is not necessary to deal with this submission. The specific case of the Appellant was that the letter was written by the Second Respondent at the instance of the First and Third Respondents. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Court :3: below that the Appellant failed to adduce any evidence to show that the letter was in the handwriting of the Second Respondent. The Appellate Court has observed that when the Second Respondent had denied the said letter, the Appellant could have always appointed a handwriting expert for comparing the admitted handwriting of the Second Respondent on record of the suit with the hand-writing in the impugned letter. There is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure of the Appellant to establish that the letter was written by the Second Respondent. As the Appellant has failed to establish that the letter was in the handwriting of the Second Respondent, obviously, further allegation that the same was written by the Second Respondent at the instance of the First and Third Respondents cannot be accepted. :4: 5. In view of the concurrent findings of the fact on this aspect, no case is made out for interference. 6. The Second Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE