IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1322 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.3.2009 Surjit Singh ...Appellant. Versus Havildar Jasvir Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this regular second appeal filed by the defendant, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the first appellate court whereby his appeal was partly allowed and the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as damages to the plaintiff by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2008 were reduced to Rs.20,000/- and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff for enhancement of the same were dismissed. The plaintiff who is son-in-law of the defendant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- against the defendant on account of damages caused due to his defamation on the averments that he was working as Head Constable at Mansa and had a long outstanding and meritorious service to his credit and, thus, was a respectable employee R.S.A. No. 1322 of 2009 -2- of the department. It was pleaded that the defendant moved false application in the Police Station by levelling bogus allegations against the plaintiff and his father, namely, Baldev Singh that on 23.3.1998 when armed with a stengun, they had threatened him to kill. The contents of the application were read/made known to the police officials, the colleague, friends of the plaintiff and other persons who thereafter started hating him with suspicion. It was further pleaded that the defendant submitted the said application with mala fide intention to lower their reputation in the eyes of public as well as the officers of the plaintiff. Hardevinder Singh, SI/SHO, City Mansa after enquiry found the allegations levelled in the application to be false and finally the application was ordered to be filed by the police. It was also pleaded that it had caused irreparable loss to the plaintiff which could not be compensated. To controvert the averments made in the plaint, the defendant filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit was based upon application dated 23.3.1998 alleged to have been submitted by him but he had never been supplied a copy of that application. It was further pleaded that he is father-in-law of the plaintiff who was causing harassment to him and his daughter, Sharanjit Kaur, besides other relatives and in this regard FIR No. 25 dated 21.3.1998 under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code had also been registered against the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was habitual of absenting himself from the duty and was also placed under suspension for obtaining sten gun and cartridge from the government armory R.S.A. No. 1322 of 2009 -3- dishonestly by misrepresenting the facts. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties holding that the defendant by making false defamatory complaint to the police had defamed the plaintiff amongst his colleagues, relatives and friends partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages for the civil wrong of his defamation. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal whereas the plaintiff filed cross objections before the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 dismissed the cross-objections and while partly accepting the appeal filed by the defendant, reduced the amount of damages to Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. The lower appellate court while partly accepting the appeal reduced the amount of damages from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and the said amount cannot be said to be excessive as there is no strait- jacket formula to assess the damages in such cases and the same has to be awarded on the basis of guess-work keeping in view the status of the plaintiff and other facts of the case. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. R.S.A. No. 1322 of 2009 -4- No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. March 25, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE