R.M.Datta, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 and for other reliefs. The suit was filed on or about 3rd January, 1968 and at that time on the ex parte prayer of the plaintiff the Court granted the leave to institute this suit.
(2.) THE suit is for damages for Rupees 80,000/- for libel supposed to be contained in a letter dated 3rd July, 1967, addressed by the defendant to the District Inspector or Schools. Before the filing of the suit the plaintiffs solicitor wrote to the defendant stating that the copy of the letter dated 3rd July, 1967, was forwarded to several persons of Jain Community in Calcutta and the letter was published in Calcutta and received wide publicity and the same was to the knowledge of the defendant. It is necessary here to set out the relevant portion of the said letter which ran as follows:-- "Our client's attention has been drawn to a copy of your letter dated the 3rd July, 1967, addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri. A copy of that letter has been forwarded to several persons of the Jain Community in Calcutta, The letter has been published in Calcutta and has received wide publicity."
(3.) IN the plaint also the plaintiff does not make out a definite case that the defendant had published the copy of the said letter or the contents of the said letter at Calcutta amongst divers members of the Jain Community nor is that fact admitted by the defendant. The relevant paragraph which is paragraph 3 of the plaint is set out below:-- "The said letter dated 3rd July, 1967, and/or copies thereof have been widely published to and/or circulated amongst divers persons in the State of Uttar Pradesh out side the aforesaid Jurisdiction. The, said letter was also widely published to and/or circulated amongst divers members of the Jain Community in Calcutta within the said jurisdiction and in particular to one Babu-lal Saraogi at premises No. 196, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Calcutta, within the said jurisdiction by whom the said letter was in the ordinary course of business opened and read, the defendant well knowing that the said letter would and intending that it should be so opened and read.";