-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1577 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4030 OF 2008 Shailesh Rajesh @ Rajendra Malavai and Anr. .. Appellants. Vs. Pallavi Dilip Bhavsar .. Respondent. Mr.A.R.Shaikh for the appellants. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 4TH AUGUST, 2008. PC: PC: PC: . Heard Mr.Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No.216 of 2005 against the appellants in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nashik claiming damages of Rs.15,00,000/- and also seeking restraining order against defendant no.1 not to get married till the said amount was paid. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nashik was pleased to decree the suit partly and defendant no.1 has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff by way of damages, as per the judgment and order dated 18.10.2007 hence this first appeal. -2- 3. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nashik framed the following issues and answered them accordingly: ISSUES FINDINGS ISSUES FINDINGS ISSUES FINDINGS "1. Does plaintiff proves that defendants have published defamatory allegations against her in the reply notice dated 22/02/2004 ? In the affirmative 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.15,00,000/- from the Partly in defendants by way of compensation? affirmative. 3. What order and decree ? Suit is partly decreed." 4. There is no dispute that the parties belong to same community and the engagement ceremony for proposed marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was performed on 26.1.2001 at Nashik in the presence of Purohit Chandratre in Swami Narayan temple hall. Defendant No.1 had backed out from the proposed marriage on the basis that he had received anonymous call from Shri Aba Deshmukh and some photographs had come in his possession, of the plaintiff and the said Aba Deshmukh together. Aba Deshmukh is the proprietor of Namrata Enterprises where the plaintiff was employed. 5. The plaintiff had stepped into the witness box -3- and deposed in support of her case whereas defendant no.1 examined Shailesh Malavi and Ramesh Malavi as the witnesses. Their evidence has been considered by the trial Court and on both counts it has been held that there was no reliable evidence. D.W. Shaliesh Malavi admitted in his cross examination that whatever obscene photographs were shown by Shri Aba Deshmukh allegedly, were not with him and he did not lodge the complaint nor did he inform in writing to the plaintiff or her parents. He further admitted that the office of Shri Aba Deshmukh was in front of Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road, Nashik and it was convenient for the parties concerned to secure appearance of Aba Deshmukh and examine as their witness. This was not done. Aba Deshmukh could have been the best witness for the defendants to prove the allegations levelled against the plaintiff and he was not examined. 6. Thus, the defendants on the basis of the allegations which had no foundation withdrew from the proposed marriage and the plaintiff was justified in asking for recovery of damages. The learned Judge of the trial Court has set out sound reasons in support of the decree and, therefore, this appeal must fail at the threshold. 5. The appeal is dismissed in limine. -4- 6. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that they have deposited the decretal amount with the trial Court. We direct that the said amount be allowed to be withdrawn by the plaintiff immediately. 7. Civil application also does not survive and it is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)