Failure to Evidence Publication of Libel and Disprove Bona Fide Comments Precludes Claims for Defamatory Damages

The appellant, an Associate Professor and former in-charge Principal of Cachar College, filed a defamation suit (Money Suit No. 8/2017) seeking ₹1 crore in damages against the respondent, a retired Principal and advocate.

She alleged the respondent circulated two undated pamphlets (Doc-1 and Doc-2) in 2016 and 2017 containing false allegations of financial scams and illegal appointments, which led to her suspension.

The respondent denied the allegations, asserting the statements were bona fide and noted the appellant was under departmental proceedings for various charges.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 22.12.2023.

The appellant appealed, claiming her trial counsel’s death prevented her from submitting evidence and requested a remand to introduce the pamphlets and reinstatement orders.

1. Whether the respondent defamed the appellant and lowered her reputation through the circulation of the two pamphlets (Doc-1 and Doc-2)?

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for the alleged libelous and slanderous imputations?

3. Whether the appellant should be permitted to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC?

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding appeals from original decrees.

It relied on Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish defamation.

It further interpreted Order XLI Rule 2 and Rule 27 of the CPC regarding the appellate court's discretion to hear new grounds and admit additional evidence.

The court cited Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, which establishes that additional evidence in appeal should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where the court cannot pronounce judgment on the existing record.

The court found that the appellant fundamentally failed to discharge her burden of proof as she never exhibited the primary defamatory documents (Doc-1 and Doc-2) or her reinstatement order during the trial.

Cross-examination revealed the appellant had several prior disciplinary show-cause notices for unauthorized absence and occupation of premises, contradicting her claim of an "unblemished career".

The court observed that the departmental suspension was based on internal inquiries, not merely the respondent's pamphlets.

Regarding the request for additional evidence, the court noted that the appellant's claim that her lawyer's death hindered her was unsubstantiated by the record, as her counsel was present during cross-examination on multiple dates between August and November 2022.

Since the appellant had "ample opportunities" to produce the evidence during trial but "elected not to do so," the court refused to exercise its discretion to fill the lacunae.

The prayer for additional evidence was rejected because the appellant showed no satisfactory reason for the non-production of documents during the trial and the suit was found bereft of merit.

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment.