Defamation -- Complaint Against Advocate Made in Good Faith to Competent Authority -- Protected under doctrine of qualified privilege
(i) Defamation -- Survival of Cause of Action on Death of Plaintiff or Defendant -- The cause of action for defamation is personal and governed by the principle actio personalis moritur cum persona, and does not survive death, the relief claimed being personal and rendered nugatory upon death. Where the plaintiff dies before a decree is passed, the right to sue does not survive and the suit or appeal abates; if he dies after a decree, the cause of action merges with the decree, which becomes part of his estate and enforceable by his legal representatives. Where the defendant dies before a decree, the cause of action does not survive against his legal representatives and the suit abates; if he dies after a decree, the decree, having become a monetary liability, may be executed against the estate in the hands of his legal representatives, though not against them personally. (ii) Defamation -- Death of Sole Defendant During Pendency of Second Appeal After Decree -- Where the sole defendant dies after a suit for damages has been decreed, during pendency of a second appeal, the liability takes the form of a debt payable out of his estate. The proceedings do not abate altogether despite the personal nature of the original cause of action, and legal representatives may be brought on record for the limited purpose of representing the estate, either to contest or satisfy the decree. The second appeal remains maintainable. (iii) Defamation -- Complaint to Competent Authority Against Advocate Later Closed -- A complaint made to a competent authority against an Advocate alleging misconduct, which is enquired into and closed on the ground that the relevant documents were available in court records, does not by itself show that the complaint was false or malicious so as to amount to defamation. (iv) Defamation -- Doctrine of Qualified Privilege -- Complaint to Competent Authority -- A litigant approaching a judicial or quasi-judicial authority with a complaint against an Advocate cannot, in the absence of malice, be made liable for defamation merely because the complaint was ultimately not accepted, particularly where it was addressed only to the competent authority and not intended for public circulation. A complaint made in good faith to the proper authority for redressal of a grievance is protected under the doctrine of qualified privilege. (v) Defamation -- Doctrine of Qualified Privilege -- Burden to Prove Malice -- In a civil defamation case, intention or malice need not ordinarily be proved. Where the communication is protected by qualified privilege, the presence or absence of malice becomes decisive, and the plaintiff must prove express malice to succeed. (vi) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 -- Second Appeal -- Scope of Interference With Findings Below -- The second appellate court is not expected to reassess the entire evidence as in a regular appeal. Interference is justified only where the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on an incorrect application of law.
LOGIN TO READCaseLawToday.com is powered by M/s Law Herald Infotech
