IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 173 of 2008()
1. M.HANEEFA, ARIYATHU VILAYIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FR. GREGORIES P.KOICKAL, PRINCIPAL
... Respondent
2. M.SHERIF, PARANKAMVILAYIL OF
3. JACOB @ BABY, PLAMOOTTI, VETTIYAR
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
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