IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 88 of 2024 Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, aged about 69 years, son of late Sukhdeo Singh Yadav, resident of Prakash Nagar, Katra Road, Matkuria, P.O. and P.S. Bank More, District-Dhanbad ………………Petitioner Versus Satyadeo Pathak, son of late Lalanji Pathak, resident of Kabristan Road, Punjabi Milan, Joraphatak Road, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : ………. 05/Dated: 20/01/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VII, Dhanbad, in M.C.A. No. 319 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 388 of 2018 whereby the petition dated 15.07.2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for defamation of the petitioner only on the ground of criminal complaint case was filed by the petitioner against the plaintiff which was rejected against that he has moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2339 of 2018 which is pending and during the pendency of Cr.M.P. defamation case has been filed and no cause of action is disclosed as such plaint of the plaintiff is fit to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. He relied in the case of “Ramisetty Venkatanna and Anr. Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others” (Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023) and relying on the said judgment he submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered. 4. The learned court has found that the said suit was filed by the plaintiff within time and only ground has been taken by the petitioner that against the dismissal of the complaint, petitioner has preferred Cr.M.P. which is pending and there is no cause of action. 5. The question has arisen before the Trial Court as to whether the averments made in the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The onus to discharge this issue was upon the defendant. The argument and contention was made that Cr.M.P. is pending. The alleged defamatory communication/statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff are protected by an absolute privilege are indeed defences raised by the defendant which the court while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is precluded from going into. It is only the averments made in the plaint which have to be looked into. 6. The averments made in the present plaint may or may not be cases of absolute privilege, it is also well settled that cause of action is always a bundle of facts; it is only after trial that it will be known whether they will qualify as one or the other. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaint discloses no cause of action. In fact the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner show that an absolute privilege is not available unless the action is clearly identified for explaining such an absolute privilege; complaints or statements made to the police which are not a part of any judicial proceedings and particularly when the matters would go to court may thus not be governed by an absolute privilege; maximum that can be made available would be a qualified privilege. These being defences, at the cost of repetition, could not have been looked into at this stage and the learned court has rightly passed the order. There is no illegality in the order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.