- (1.) C.M. No. 14487-C of 2014 Prayer in this application is for making good the deficiency in Court fee. It has been stated that the deficiency in Court fee has been made good but in doing so, the delay of 132 days had occurred. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed and the Court fee, as made good, is taken on record. C.M. No. 14488-C of 2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 106 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the clerk of the counsel, the same is allowed. Delay of 106 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M. No. 380-C of 2016 Prayer in this application is for placing on record the Press Item exhibited before the trial Court as Ex. P/1. Prayer granted. Press Item exhibited before the trial Court is taken on record. Application stands disposed of. RSA No. 6085 of 2014 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 09.01.2013, whereby the suit for claim of Rs. 10 lacs on account of damages from the defendants for circulating false allegations against the plaintiff and getting printed the news items in the newspaper dated 11.02.2004 on the basis of an affidavit given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 alleging embezzlement of a huge money of the Department of Transport by respondent No. 1-plaintiff, stands decreed to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-defendant No. 1 stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 23.01.2014.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although an FIR No. 35 dated 03.02.2004 registered against the appellantdefendant No. 1 in Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib had resulted in his conviction but the appeal against the same is pending, therefore, the findings of the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside. He contends that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that in a vigilance enquiry, which has been held against the departmental officials, apart from the appellant-defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1- plaintiff has also been found to be guilty. Thus, the assertions made in the affidavit, which resulted in the publication of the news item dated 11.02.2004, are not incorrect. He, thus, contends that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside and the suit of the respondents-plaintiff dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments but do not find any merit in the assertions as put forth by him.;