Case at a Glance
An advocate who had been on the State Bank of India’s panel at the Jamui Civil Court from 1983 to 2018 was de-panelled after another panel advocate reportedly found that a title deed he had verified was not genuine. He sued three SBI officers for ₹25 lakh, claiming defamation. The Patna High Court held that ending a professional engagement is not by itself an imputation against a person, and that the plaint did not say who made any defamatory statement, to whom, when or how. It allowed the officers’ revision and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
The plaintiff was an empanelled advocate of the State Bank of India for the Jamui Civil Court from 1983 to 2018. According to him, another panel advocate re-examined a title verification report he had given and opined that the deed was not genuine, after which he was de-panelled. He said this harmed his reputation and caused him financial loss and distress. A criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC that he filed in 2019 was dismissed under Section 203 CrPC, though a criminal revision was later allowed, and related criminal proceedings remain pending.
On 19 October 2020 he filed Title (Defamation) Suit No. 137 of 2020 before the Sub-Judge-III, Jamui, claiming ₹25,00,000. The SBI officers applied on 30 May 2024 to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial court rejected that application on 17 October 2024, holding that the bar was not specified and the defects were curable. The officers then filed a civil revision under Section 115 CPC.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a bank’s decision to remove an advocate from its panel, and a vague allegation that news of it was spread, disclose a cause of action for defamation against the bank’s officers?
Ending an Engagement Says Nothing About the Person
The Court first held that it could decide the point in revision, relying on Madan Mohan (Dead) through LRs. v. Thakar Dass (Dead) through LRs. and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 08 SC CK 0075: the trial court had not examined the cause-of-action ground at all, which was a material irregularity. Under Order VII Rule 11, following Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 12 SC CK 0017 and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 07 SC CK 0003, only the plaint and its documents are read and taken as true, and the defence is irrelevant.
Relying on Mohammed Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K., (2017) 12 SC CK 0054, the Court set out the elements of defamation: an imputation about a person, intent or knowledge that it will harm reputation, and publication to a third person. Hurt feelings or financial loss do not by themselves amount to defamation. A bank may lawfully end a professional engagement; the Advocates Act gives a right to practise, not a right to be engaged (see R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 08 SC CK 0126), and de-panelment is not a statement about the advocate. The plaint attributed a statement to a “newly appointed lawyer of the Bank” spread by mobile phone, but named no defendant as its maker and did not say to whom, when or how it was published. The Court noted that Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks’ Association bars a bank from publicly declaring an advocate incompetent, but no such declaration was pleaded, and a bank letter of 7 December 2018 relied on in argument was not the foundation of the plaint.
What the Court Actually Held
- Removal of an advocate from a bank’s panel, by itself, is not an imputation and does not amount to defamation.
- A defamation plaint must plead the imputation, its maker, and its publication to third persons; pleading only the consequences is not enough.
- The trial court committed a material irregularity by not examining whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, so the High Court could decide the point under Section 115 CPC.
- The revision was allowed, the order of 17 October 2024 set aside, and the plaint in Title (Defamation) Suit No. 137 of 2020 rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a); no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Banks, insurers and public bodies routinely revise their panels of lawyers. The ruling makes clear that a decision to stop engaging a professional is not, without more, a defamatory act.
- It is a useful reminder of the pleading standard in civil defamation suits: who said what, to whom and when.
- The Court left the advocate’s other grievances, including the genuineness of the deed and pending criminal matters, untouched, so the ruling is limited to the defamation suit.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Advocates
- There is no legal right to remain on a client’s panel; a challenge to de-panelment must rest on something more than the termination itself.
- If you believe a defamatory statement was made, identify the maker, the words, the listeners and the date in the plaint.
- Where a bank publicly brands an advocate incompetent, Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks’ Association may be relevant, but it must be pleaded.
For Counsel
- An Order VII Rule 11 objection can be raised at any stage and is decided on the plaint alone.
- If the trial court does not examine the cause-of-action ground at all, revision under Section 115 CPC can lie.
- Distinguish the consequence of an act (loss of work) from publication of an imputation.
Key Takeaways
- De-panelment of a bank’s advocate is not defamation in itself.
- The plaint failed to identify the maker, recipient and timing of any defamatory statement.
- The ₹25 lakh defamation suit was rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
- No view was expressed on the genuineness of the title deed or the pending criminal proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is removing an advocate from a bank’s panel defamatory?
Not by itself. The Patna High Court held that ending a professional engagement is not an imputation about the person and does not, without more, amount to defamation.
Why was the plaint rejected without a trial?
Read as a whole and taken as true, the plaint did not disclose a cause of action: it named no defendant who made the alleged statement and did not plead to whom, when or how it was published.
Does this ruling decide whether the advocate’s title report was correct?
No. The Court expressly expressed no view on the genuineness of the deed, the competing title reports or the pending criminal matters.
Conclusion
The Court drew a clear line between losing a client and being defamed. An advocate may feel wronged by being dropped from a panel, but the law of defamation protects reputation against false imputations published to others; it does not guarantee continued engagement.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a defamation suit, make sure the plaint states the exact words, who spoke or wrote them, to whom and when; without these, the suit can be rejected at the outset.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com