RSA No. 1143 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1143 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2009 Megha Singh ...... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. S.P.Thukral, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for damages against respondent No.2 on the ground that by writing a letter he had defamed the appellant. It may be mentioned that in the said letter the respondent No.2 had mentioned that he had to take an amount of Rs. 8000/- from the appellant and that no dues certificate should not be granted to the appellant till such time as the appellant refunded his amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent No.2 was not able to prove that any loan had been taken by the appellant. He has proposed the following questions:- i) Whether the plaintiff-appellant's reputation has not RSA No. 1143 of 2009 2 been defamed at the time of his retirement while addressing the letter to Superintending Engineer, Kandi Canal Circle, Hoshiarpur with copy to the plaintiff- appellant on the plea of loan (which has not been proved by the respondent No.2 before the courts below? ii) Whether treating the letter written by respondent No.2 can be considered as a private letter? iii) Whether considering the case of the plaintiff- appellant as mis-joinder or State of Punjab is unnecessary party is not against the mandatory provision of law i.e. Order XXVII Rule 5-A of C.P.C.? iv) Whether deciding the case of plaintiff-appellant is not against the provisions of Evidence Act as the learned courts below have considered the evidence of DW2 Shri Ram Sarup who had in fact been withdrawn by the respondent No.2's counsel and while taking adverse inference his evidence recorded as PW2 has been brushed aside and affidavit filed by him (which stands withdrawn) is legal and correct? v) Whether the courts below can decide the case outside the pleadings of the parties? vi) Whether a letter asking for specific amount (admitted on record) circulating the same to higher authorities and office of plaintiff-appellant without mentioning the details of loan or otherwise clearly stating the facts ' that NDC' will be issued after receipt of Rs.8000/- from plaintiff-appellant can be considered as a bona fide and not damage of reputation of Class-1 officer? It would be seen that questions no. 1, 2, 4 and 6 are all related. In my opinion even if it is held that no amount was due from the appellant yet the appellant did not produce a single witness to depose that his reputation had been besmirched in the eyes of the said witness after RSA No. 1143 of 2009 3 perusing the said allegedly false claim. In fact in para 20 of the judgment the learned Lower Appellate Court has also adverted to this requirement. Thus, I find no infirmity with the finding that the letter in question was not defamatory. As regards questions No. 3 and 5 in my opinion it is not necessary to give any finding on them for the purpose of decision of this appeal. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the CMs stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 13, 2009 sunita