9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o such repayment appellant went on advancing loans and purchasing articles for her. Respondent put off making repayment and ultimately the suit was filed. A sum of over Rupees four thousand was claimed in the suit. Respondent contested the suit denying the transactions alleged. She, however, contended that the suit was filed with the intention of defaming and intimidating her and causing annoyance to her, a young lady who was working as a Government servant. Trial Court decreed the suit. Respondent challenged the decree in appeal. Appellate Court reversed the decree and Judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit with costs in both the Courts. Appellant herein filed S.A. 443/80 but this Court dismissed the same at the admission stage. It was thereafter that the appellant filed the present suit claiming damages for loss of reputation on account of defamatory statements said to have been made in the course of trial. 3. Exts. Al and A2 are certified copies of plaint and written statement in the prior suit. There was an attachment before Judgment. Ext. A3 is a copy of the petition filed by the respondent against the attachment. Ext. A4 is a copy of the issues raised in the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even though his income from his profession is not substantial. His three sons who are well placed in life and his daughter employed abroad have been supplying him with funds. Respondent is a divorcee. The Court also referred to the suggestion put to the respondent in cross-examination to the effect that she being a woman of dubious morals, one of her brothers committed suicide and her husband divorced her. The Court also commented on the circumstance that according to the appellant's case, he has been anxious and ever willing to fulfil the demands of the respondent for her mere asking. He was prepared to go anywhere with sufficient money in his pocket to satisfy her desires. The inference drawn by the Appellate Court was that even according to the appellant loans were given and purchases were made at various places and occasions. The Court noticed that the goods alleged to have been purchased by the appellant for the respondent consisted of cosmetics, perfumes, beauty aides, vitamine tablets and honey and the money was allegedly supplied for buying saries, ornaments, vessels, provisions etc. The Court also noticed that from the entries in the documents relied on by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udges, Juries, counsel, parties and witnesses in the course of trial in the course of any judicial proceeding are statements made on privileged occasions and the maker of the statements is saved from civil action by the rule of absolute privilege and no action will lie for damages. 9. For over four hundred years English courts have reiterated this view. See Damport v. Sympson (1596) 78 ER 769, Eyres v. Sedgewicks (1620) 79 ER 513, Astly v. Younge (1759) 2 Burr 507 = 97 ER 572, Kennedy v. Hilliard (1859) 10 Ir., C.L.R. NS 195, Henderson v. Broomhead (1859) 4 H N 569 = 157 ER 964, Scott v. Stansfield (1868) LR 3 Ex 220, Dawkins v. Lord Rokely (1875) LR 7 HL 744 (affirming (1873), LR 8 QB 255), Seaman v. Netherclift (1876) 2 CPD 53, Munster v. Lamb (1883) 11 QBD 588, Royal Aquarian and Summer and Winter Garden Society v. Parkinson (1892) 1 QB 431 and Anderson v. Gorrie (1895) 1 QB 668. These decisions have accepted the view that statements made by Judges, Juries, counsel, parties and witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings are not actionable in civil law for slander as the occasion is absolutely privileged. Astley's case deals specifically with statements made by a pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l persons, but that it is intended to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule, would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgment against them, but to the vexation of defending actions . In public interest it is not desirable to enquire whether the words or actions of these persons are malicious or not. It is not that there is any privilege to be malicious, but that so far as it is a privilege of an individual and a right of the public, the privilege is to be exempted from all enquiries as to malice. 13. The Common Law rule of absolute privilege in a civil action for slander in regard to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings has been followed by courts in India. The Privy Council accepted the principle in Baboo Gunnesh Dutt Singh v. Mugneeram Choudhary (1873) 11 Beng LR 324. See also Sullivan v. Morton (1887) ILR 10 Madras 28 (FB), Bhaishanker Nanabhai v. L. M. Wadia (1900) 2 Bom LR 3 (FB), Adapala Adivarnamma v. Ramachandra Reddy (1911) 21 Mad LJ 85, Hindustan Gilt Jewel Works v. Chilamkurti Gangayya, ILR (1943) Mad 685 : (AIR 1943 Mad 350), Nannumal v. Ramprasad AIR 1926 All 672. After reviewing practically the entire Indian case law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be able to devote their entire attention to the conduct of the proceedings; be they Judges, counsel, parties or witnesses. At every stage they should not be compelled to pause and analyse the absolute relevancy of the statements they proposed to make in the course of proceedings; to insist that they should do so would seriously hamper and weaken judicial process. At the same time statements which are absolutely irrelevant or are made dehors the matter in hand or have no reference to the matter of enquiry cannot be privileged. It must always be borne in mind that in deciding whether a statement has reference to the matter of enquiry, the widest and most comprehensive interpretation must be given. 17. I have already referred to the statements made in the prior litigation and the context in which they were made. I have also referred to the appellate judgment in that case. The statements attempted to explain the background of the prior relationship between the parties and to establish that appellant had a strong motive to put forward a false money claim to harass the respondent. In the light of these materials it cannot be said that the impugned statements were absolutely irrelev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
