IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 173 of 2008 --------------------------------- AS.97/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA OS.218/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: M.HANEEFA, ARIYATHU VILAYIL, ASHRAF MANZIL, CHUNAKKARA SOUTH CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 3: 1. FR. GREGORIES P.KOICKAL, PRINCIPAL, CHERUPUSHA BETHANY SCHOOL, P.B.NO.1, CHUNAKKARA P.O., 690536. 2. M.SHERIF, PARANKAMVILAYIL OF CHUNAKKARA P.O., CHUNAKKARA. 3. JACOB @ BABY, PLAMOOTTIL, VETTIYAR MAMKAMKUZHY P.O. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 173 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for damages for defamation assailing the concurrent verdicts passed by the courts below against him. It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below have dismissed the suit for the reason that there was no publication of the alleged defamatory matter and also for the reason that admittedly there was no malice, but that there is both malice and publication as would be evidenced on a proper analysis of the evidence. 2. On going through the judgments of the courts below, wherein certain statements of the plaintiff himself is extracted, I am of the view that the courts below were justified in observing that there was actually no malice or animosity for the defendants against the appellant/plaintiff to defame him. Further, when a grievance is brought to RSA 173/08 2 the notice of the higher ups, it is not a matter that can be complained of as defamatory unless the intention in lodging such a complaint is to see that the publication of the defamatory matter is brought about to defame a person. No such intention is discernible in the complaints forwarded by the respondents to the higher ups as against the appellant. Further, I also find that the complaint forwarded against the appellant by the respondents is complaining of a speech made by the appellant on the Independence Day in 1998 before the students of his School as being to the effect that he has presented in an emotional and inspiring manner some foisted instances in connection with some incident that took place the previous day, which were, instead of helping development of unity, sowing seeds of animosity and hatred. There is absolutely no evidence furnished in the case as to what was the speech. Without providing the court the speech of the plaintiff himself, it is not discernible as RSA 173/08 3 to whether the complaint made against the speech of the appellant before the higher ups were genuine or without merit. 3. Counsel for the appellant contends that evidence of the Headmistress of the appellant's School will show that he has not made any speech of the nature complained of. It is worthy to note that the complaint is also against that Headmistress, as the complaint is that the appellant, along with the Headmistress, made attempt at sowing seeds of animosity and hatred. Thus, there is absolutely no merit at all in this Regular Second Appeal and no substantial question of law also arises for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Further, the damages claimed in the suit is money to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, by reason of Section 102 of the CPC, a second appeal will not be maintainable before this Court. RSA 173/08 4 For all the above reasons, I dismiss this Regular Second Appeal in limine, refusing admission. 4th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv