Sen J. - (1.) ON 3-8-1952 in the issue of INDORE SAMACHAR Hindi Daily having a large circulation in Indore, a news item under the caption "SETHAJI KA HAMALA POLICE KO", appeared. Purshottam Vijay is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the said Daily. '
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant Chogalal alleges that he was running a business of Iron and Steel in the name of Jokhiram Kanhyalal and the news item that was published under the above caption was done in order to defame him. THE item was deliberately published without any good faith maliciously in order to lower him in the estimation of the public. This has resulted in injuring his status in life as well as his business. It has also given him mental shock and pain. The plaintiff further alleges that he had given the said Purshottam Vijay opportunity to make amends and apologise by a wire dated 3-8-1952 but it was of no avail. Again on 30-7-1953 he had demanded Rs. 26,000 as compensation for this libel. This was also refused. Under the above circumstances the plaintiff has brought the suit for damages on account of this deliberate libel. The defendant Purshottam Vijay denied the status of the plaintiff and that he has been carrying on his business in the name of Jokhiram Kanhyalal. He denied that the news item was published in bad faith or maliciously or in deliberate suppression of the truth. The publication he asserted was in the usual course of business of news paper on receipt of the news from the reporters. There has been no defamation of the plaintiff by publishing the same. The defendant published the same knowing it to be true. The defendant further asserted that the news item that was published was true and it was for the good of the public and published in good faith. Other adverse allegations were also denied by the defendant.
(3.) IN his special pleadings the defendant further submitted that the claim was barred by time. He also claimed compensatory costs for this false and frivolous claim. The Additional District Judge Indore dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the allegation against the plaintiff was substantially true. No part of the news according to the trial Judge was found to be false or untrue. He held that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the plea of justification. The plaintiff has now come up in appeal.;