VERSUS

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents, has submitted that the premise for seeking damages for Defamation is the circulation of the Show Cause Notice by the Defendants, to the members of the Society and not the proceedings initiated by the respondents (plaintiff) before the ROC against him. It is, therefore, submitted that the Application has been rightly rejected as the cause of action is disclosed in the Suit.

4. Submissions heard.

5. Briefly stated, the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit CS DJ 594/21 for claiming Rs.[5] lacs as damages from the defendant for diminishing and tarnishing his reputation and goodwill.

6. The Plaintiff had been in the Managing Committee of the Society holding different posts from 1987 till about 2018. On 21.06.2018 the Returning Officer who held the elections on 14.10.2018. The Defendants/Revisionists were elected as the new Managements, who took over the affairs of the Society.

7. The Plaintiff claimed that they had no experience and unable to manage the affairs of the Society effectively. However, they issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2019 alleging that the Plaintiff as a President and Secretary, had indulged in various financial irregularities and had siphoned off and misappropriated valuable funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.33,35,718/-. Deliberate malicious, baseless and defamatory allegations were made against the Plaintiff pronouncing a verdict that he was guilty of misappropriation without waiting for a Reply from the Plaintiff and without an iota of evidence.

8. The Plaintiff further stated that claim had been filed for Recovery of Rs.1,42,20,617/- against the Plaintiff and his associates before RCS under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (‘DCS Act’ hereinafter), which is pending disposal.

9. The Plaintiff asserted that this Show Cause Notice which was circulated amongst the Members of the Society has resulted in loss of reputation and goodwill and sought damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/from the Respondent/Defendant.

10. The Defendants/Revisionists in their Written Statement had taken the defence that they had no personal grudge, bias or malice against the Plaintiff, being the elected Executive Body of the Society. In fact, there were no defamatory allegations or imputations made against the Plaintiff. The Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2019 was not motivated or mala fide. The Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2019 was circulated on the Whatsapp Group of the Society only on 11.11.2019 on the demand of the Members of the Society in the General Body Meeting held on 13.10.2019. It was claimed that the contents of the Show Cause Notice are true and in fact its contents have been admitted by two of the Associates of the Plaintiff, who have not initiated any action against the Respondents. There was no humiliation or mental distress caused to the Plaintiff. Further objections were taken that there was no cause of action disclosed in the Suit. It was further claimed that the Suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. Moreover, the Suit was barred by limitation and was not tenable.

11. The Defendants/Respondents thereafter filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the Plaint on these grounds.

12. The first ground on which the rejection of plaint is sought is that it did not disclose any cause of action. However, the Plaintiff had specifically averred that the Show Cause Notice containing defamatory allegations and imputations against the Plaintiff, was circulated in the Members of the Society, a fact which is admitted by Revisionists. Prima facie, from the contents of the plaint, it cannot be said that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

13. The second ground taken on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendant was that there was mis-joinder of parties and that necessary parties have not been impleaded in the Suit. However, aside from taking this bald assertion, it has nowhere been explained as to which parties are no necessary or which were necessary to be joined as a party. Only a vague plea has been set up by the Revisionist. Moreover, in case it is found that there is mis-joinder or nonjoinder of parties, the same can always be added at any stage during the trial, by either party. The learned District Judge has rightly rejected this ground as taken by the Revisionists in their Application.

14. The third ground taken by the Revisionist was that the Suit was barred by limitation.

15. Admittedly, the Show Cause Notice was made public and circulated to the Members of the Society on 11.11.2019. It is not in dispute that COVID-19 Pandemic intervened from March, 2020. The Supreme Court In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [(2022) 3 SCC 117] has excluded the period of limitation from March, 2020 till February, 2022. The cause of action had arisen on 11.11.2019, but the Suit has been filed in November, 2020. If the benefit of excluding of limitation period is given, the Suit has been filed well within the limitation period.

16. The Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge.

17. There is no merit in the present Revision Petition, which is hereby dismissed.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE