2012 (10) TMI 1189 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Barred by Limitation
2. Absolute Privilege
3. No Cause of Action

Summary:

1. Barred by Limitation:
The defendants argued that the suit is barred by the law of limitation u/s Article 75 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a one-year period for filing a defamation suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in March 2009 based on defamatory notices dated 28.9.2007 and 9.10.2007, and affidavits filed in November 2008. The court held that the limitation period started from the dates of the notices and the petition dated 1.2.2008, making the suit filed after one year barred by limitation.

2. Absolute Privilege:
The defendants contended that the statements made in the affidavits are protected by Absolute Privilege, as they were part of judicial proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Society. The court reviewed the law on defamation and Absolute Privilege, concluding that statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are immune from defamation actions. The Registrar's proceedings were deemed quasi-judicial, thus the statements in the affidavits were Absolutely Privileged and not actionable.

3. No Cause of Action:
The defendants argued that the plaint disclosed no cause of action as the proceedings before the Registrar were pending. The court found that since the statements in the affidavits were Absolutely Privileged, the issue of cause of action was irrelevant. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law.

Conclusion:
The application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the suit was dismissed as barred by law due to limitation and Absolute Privilege.