Judgment : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. This is the plaintiff’s first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned 8 th Additional District Judge , Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 189-B/2007 whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the suit for loss of damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- 2. The parties are referred to as described in the civil suit before the learned trial Court. 3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint’s averments are that:- 3.A)The plaintiff filed the civil suit mainly contending that his father was a contractor at the Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) since 1965 under the name and style of the firm M/s G.B. Patel. He enjoyed an excellent reputation among BSP officials and within the business community for the quality and diligence with which he executed contractual work. He also took active interest in social service and contributed personally and financially wherever required. His family similarly enjoyed high standing within the Gujarati community as well as in the social and business circles of the city. He was a peace-loving and kind-hearted person. 3.B)It is stated that the plaintiff assisted his father in the BSP contractual work during his lifetime and, after his father’s death in 1998, completed all pending contractual obligations in an respectable manner. Subsequent to his father’s demise, the contracting firm came to be transferred in the name of his mother, who continues to execute BSP contracts under her own name, though the plaintiff manages the firm on her behalf. The firm has an annual turnover of approximately Rs. 1½ - 2 crores. 3.C)The plaintiff resides at Malviya Nagar, a prominent colony of Durg city, where several well-known industrialists, businessmen, contractors, professionals, and social workers reside. The plaintiff and his family members maintain cordial and respectable relations with all such dignitaries. 3.D)It has been further contended that the defendant, who is also a contractor at Bhilai Steel Plant, has long harboured jealousy towards the plaintiff due to business competition and has been attempting to harm him, therefore, the defendant maliciously lodged a false report at Police Station Bhatti-Bhilai on 03.04.2003, although the case was not registered. 3.D)It has been further contended that the defendant, who is also a contractor at Bhilai Steel Plant, has long harboured jealousy towards the plaintiff due to business competition and has been attempting to harm him, therefore, the defendant maliciously lodged a false report at Police Station Bhatti-Bhilai on 03.04.2003, although the case was not registered. The next day, on 04.04.2003, the defendant submitted a written complaint against him and his employees Venus Saima and Dharmendra Yadav to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, levelling false, fabricated and defamatory allegations against them alleging that they had given threats to life, they have made extortion demands, and interfered in tender process. A case was registered under Section 507 IPC based on the said complaint. Copies of this defamatory complaint were circulated to several high authorities, including the Collector, Inspector General, Director General of Police, the Home Minister, the Chief Minister and the Union Deputy Prime Minister. A copy was also sent to BSP management. It is stated that these allegations tarnished the plaintiff’s image before senior police officers, district administration, State Government authorities, Ministers, and other dignitaries with whom the plaintiff had regular contact due to his social, religious, political, and press-related work. Sending copies to BSP officers further damaged his reputation within the Plant establishment. It is next stated that, without awaiting the results of the police inquiry, the defendant, out of malice and jealousy, deliberately published false and defamatory news in local daily newspapers on 05.04.2003, resulting in humiliation of the plaintiff in society, business, industry, and before government officials. The publications were widely circulated in Durg-Bhilai and other major cities of Chhattisgarh which has caused him severe mental agony, harassment. He could not properly participate in the tender process scheduled on 10.04.2003, leading to non-award of contract work worth Rs. 18,45,440, resulting in a financial loss of approximately Rs. 2,00,000. Therefore, the plaintiff was placed under vigilance monitoring by BSP, its Vigilance Department, CISF, and other officials. He faced social stigma, suspicion, and questioning, causing immense humiliation. 3.E)It has been further contended that he issued a legal notice demanding a public apology and symbolic damages of Rs. 10,00,000/-, but the defendant failed to comply. Consequently, he filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Therefore, he filed present suit claiming damages and prayed for allowing the suit. 10,00,000/-, but the defendant failed to comply. Consequently, he filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Therefore, he filed present suit claiming damages and prayed for allowing the suit. 3.F)The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and admitted that the plaintiff is a contractor in the Bhilai Steel Plant. It has also been admitted that he has lodged complaint against the plaintiff for the threat given by him. The Police has not taken cognizance of the offence, therefore he has filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class which is pending. It has been denied that he has leveled false allegation against the plaintiff and also denied that he has made paper publication tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff. It has been further contended that since the plaintiff has not arrayed the editor, subscriber or owner of the newspaper, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It has also been contended that the suit is beyond the jurisdiction, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 7 issues. The issue Nos. 2,3,4 and 6 are relevant and they are extracted below: - 5. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined himself as PW-1, Sammukh Patel as PW-2, Shiju Anthoni as PW-3, Shushila Dixit as PW-4, Rekhram Sinha as PW-5, Kaushal Kishore Singh as PW- 6, Kanti Bhai Patel as PW-7 and Ramesh Tiwari as as PW-8 and exhibited documents namely paper cutting of daily newspaper Hari Bhoomi and Prakhar Samachar dated 05/04/2003 Ex.P-01, office copy of the notice sent to the defendant on 22/04/2003 by his advocate Girdhari Lal Yadav Ex.P-02. Postal receipt Ex.P-03 & 04. Postal receipt Ex.P-03 & 04. Acknowledgment Ex.P-05, copy of written complaint sent by the defendant to the Superintendent of Police on 04/04/2003 Ex.P-06, Balance Sheet of business till 31/03/2002 Ex.P-7, Receipt of the letter of being a permanent resident of the State of America and identity card of receiving social security Ex.P-08, driving license of the state of Texas Ex.P-09, Original copy of the contract award dated 11/06/2002 from Bhilai Steel Plant Ex.P-10, Original copy of other tender award letters dated 30/08/2002, 11/10/2002, 21/09/2002 and 23/11/2002 as Ex.P-11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively, letter dated 18/04/2003 received from Maharashtra Electrosmelt Limited regarding inspection contract Ex.P-15, Award letter received from Bhilai Steel Plant dated 04/09/2001 Ex.P-16. Appreciation letters issued by Steel Authority of India, dated 20/03/2001, 19/03/2001, 21/03/2001 and 20/03/2001 Ex.P-17, 18, 19 and 20, information obtained from Police Station Bhilai Bhatti under RTI Act Ex.P-21, postal receipt of application submitted for obtaining information from Bhilai Steel Plant under RTI Act Ex.P- 22, postal order Ex.P 23, acknowledgement letter Ex.P-24 and information sent by the office of Deputy General Manager and Public Information Officer BSP on 17/08/2016 Ex.P 25 and copy of letter dated 18/08/2015 sent to the plaintiff by General Secretary of Indian Press Council Ex.P. 26. The defendant has examined himself as D.W-01, Anuragini as D.W.-02 and exhibited documents namely the documents obtained from General Manager Commercial Office Room No. 204 2nd Floor Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant as Ex.D-01, documents received from Public Information Officer RTO, Durg as Ex.D-02, documents received from the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, District-Durg under the RTI as Ex.D-03, Certified Copy of the charge sheet as Ex.D-04. 6. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit which has been assailed before this Court in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and would submit that the trial Court has committed illegality in deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 3 without proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record. It is contended that the findings recorded are perverse, contrary to the evidence, and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 2 and 3 without proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record. It is contended that the findings recorded are perverse, contrary to the evidence, and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. He would further submit that though the trial Court itself has recorded a categorical finding that the contents of the FIR and the paper publication are similar, and that the publication made at the instance of the defendant has tarnished the image of the plaintiff, still it has erroneously dismissed the suit. It is further urged that the essential ingredients for claiming damages on account of proved defamation by the plaintiff, the learned trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. He would also submit that in matters pertaining to the Law of Torts, particularly suits for defamation involving print and electronic media, the Court is well empowered to award damages against the wrongdoer. Despite the plaintiff producing the paper publication which clearly derogates his reputation, the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the suit. He would further submit that learned trial Court has erred in recording its finding in paragraph 16 that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt as in civil proceedings, the facts are required to be established on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, and not by proof beyond reasonable doubt as is required in criminal jurisprudence. He would submit that the plaintiff has brought sufficient materials on record to prove his claim of damages. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the matter requires reconsideration, this Court can exercise its power under Order XLI Rule 23 and Order XLI Rule 23A of the CPC to remand the matter for re-appreciation of the evidence. To substantiate his submission he would refer to judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Mst Ramdhara and Another vs. Mst. Phulwantibai { 1969 MP 474 }} and refer to paragraph 30 and 34 of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others { (2012) 8 SCC 1 } which reads as under :- 30. Phulwantibai { 1969 MP 474 }} and refer to paragraph 30 and 34 of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahmood Nayyar Azam vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others { (2012) 8 SCC 1 } which reads as under :- 30. In Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another, this Court reproduced an observation from the decision in D. F. Marion v. Davis:- “The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.” 34. Recently in Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, although in a different context, while dealing with the aspect of reputation, this Court has observed as follows: - “……..reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity.” 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court would submit that the findings recorded therein are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record. He would further submit that the trial Court has meticulously examined the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence, and has rightly held that the plaintiff failed to establish the essential ingredients required to constitute a cause of action for defamation. He would further submit that the trial Court has correctly observed that the plaintiff could not prove any intentional act on the part of the defendant aimed at lowering his reputation in the estimation of the public, nor was any legal injury demonstrated. The alleged publication, even if taken at face value, does not satisfy the threshold required for grant of damages in tort. It is argued that the findings on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence, no material was placed on record that defendant on professional jealousy has made false and forge complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg. It is argued that the findings on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence, no material was placed on record that defendant on professional jealousy has made false and forge complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg. The officers and vigilance department can very well assess the functioning the plaintiff, therefore, it cannot be said that on any act of the defendant damages have been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff has not placed any materials on record nor examined the editor or owner of the newspaper press to demonstrate that on his instance the news has been published. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit which does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the Court below. 11. On pleadings of the parties, materials placed on record, the point to be determined by this Court is :- “Whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit are legal and justified and do not warrant interference by this Court; and whether the non-examination of the editor or any other authorised person from the concerned print media is fatal to the case of the plaintiff?” 12. To appreciate the point to be determined by this Court, it is expedient for the Court to go through the evidence adduced by both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. 13. The plaintiff’s main witness P.W.–01 in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In cross-examination by the defendant, he has admitted that he had no knowledge that the firm, which after the death of his father was transferred in the name of his mother, had already been prohibited by the Dy. G.M., Rail and Structure and also by the SAIL Management. He further admitted in paragraph 39 of his cross-examination that although he had attempted to obtain information from the Editor of the newspaper, no information was furnished to him. He also admitted that he had issued a notice to the Newspaper Editor, but no reply was received. G.M., Rail and Structure and also by the SAIL Management. He further admitted in paragraph 39 of his cross-examination that although he had attempted to obtain information from the Editor of the newspaper, no information was furnished to him. He also admitted that he had issued a notice to the Newspaper Editor, but no reply was received. He has further admitted that he has not produced a copy of the notice and voluntarily stated that he is not in possession of the copy of the said notice. 14. Sammukh Patel (P.W.–02) was examined before the trial Court in support of the plaintiff, and in the cross examination, he has admitted that he has not made any inquiry regarding the publication of the news. Sushila Dixit (P.W.–03) admitted in her cross-examination that the business of the plaintiff is running well till date. Rekhram Sinha (P.W.–05), in his cross examination has admitted that he has not made any inquiry from the Editor of the newspaper regarding the publication of the news and further admitted that he has not taken any step after reading the said publication. Another witness, Kaushal Kumar Singh (P.W.–06), admitted in his cross-examination that he has not verified from the Editor or owner of either of the newspapers whether the defendant has published the news. Ramesh Tiwari (P.W.–07), in his cross examination also admitted that after reading the publication he did not inquire from the Editor or the owner as to who had authored or caused the news to be published. Similarly, Kantibai Patel (P.W.– 08), in her cross examination admitted that the name of the person who published the news was not mentioned in the publication. 15. On a bare perusal of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is evident that none of the witnesses examined on his behalf has deposed as to who was responsible for publishing the news item. The plaintiff appears to have instituted the suit merely on the basis of his apprehension, without any substantive material. The defendant, on the other hand, has categorically stated in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief that he did not publish any news item against the plaintiff in any newspaper and that he never intended to humiliate him. He further stated that it is the plaintiff who has lodged a complaint against him on false grounds. 16. The defendant, on the other hand, has categorically stated in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief that he did not publish any news item against the plaintiff in any newspaper and that he never intended to humiliate him. He further stated that it is the plaintiff who has lodged a complaint against him on false grounds. 16. The learned trial Court, upon due appreciation of the evidence, has recorded a finding in paragraph 14 that the plaintiff has failed to examine any Editor, Publisher, Correspondent, or subscriber of the news item to establish that its publication was made at the instance or with the consent of the defendant. The learned trial Court has further observed that the contents of the complaint submitted by the defendant before the Senior Superintendent of Police and the news report published in the newspapers appear to be similar, therefore, in absence of the examination of the owner, correspondent, or any responsible officer of the concerned newspaper, no inference can be drawn that the act of publication is attributable to the defendant only. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 17. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that non-examination of owner, correspondent or any other responsible officer of the news establishment is fatal and it cannot be held that the defendant has published the news and committed defamation of the plaintiff is in accordance with law inasmuch as, unless and until a witness from the newspaper establishment is examined before the Court to establish that the impugned news item was published at the instance of the defendant, mere publication of news, without further proof, its liability cannot be fastened upon any person to have it published. It is well settled position of law that news paper report by itself does not constitute any evidence of the contents of it. The reports are only hearsay evidence. They have to be proved either by production of reporter who heard the said statement and sent them for reporting or production of report sent by such reporter and production of the Editor of newspaper or its publisher to prove the said report. It is also well settled position of law that newspaper report is at the best secondary evidence and not admissible in the evidence without proof of its contents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also well settled position of law that newspaper report is at the best secondary evidence and not admissible in the evidence without proof of its contents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is thus clear that newspaper report is not a legal evidence which can be examined in support of the complaint. The plaintiff has not followed the said procedure to prove the contents of the report as such, no case for causing defamation is made out against the defendant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P., (2020) 16 SCC 811 , has examined how the paper report has to be proved in the court of law and its evidentiary value and held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under:— “6. As noted, the entire basis for making the allegations as contained in the miscellaneous petition is an article relied on by the petitioner said to have been published in the newspaper. There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper. In our view this Court will have to be very circumspect while accepting such contentions based only on certain newspaper reports. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly held that the newspaper item without any further proof is of no evidentiary value. The said principle laid down has thereafter been taken note in several public interest litigations to reject the allegations contained in the petition supported by newspaper report. 7. It would be appropriate to notice the decision in Kushum Lata v. Union of India , (2006) 6 SCC 180 , wherein it is observed thus : (SCC p. 186, para 17) “17. … It is also noticed that the petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases, newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition.” 8. As observed by this Court in several cases, newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition.” 8. This Court, in Rohit Pandey v. Union of India , (2005) 13 SCC 702 , while considering the petition purporting to be in public interest filed by a member of the legal fraternity had come down heavily on the petitioner, since the said petition was based only on two newspaper reports without further verification.” 18. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533 , it is held as under: “70. It is settled law that courts cannot take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence, unless proved by the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. 48 In the absence of anything on record in the present case to substantiate the statement made by Mr. Jayaprakash Muliyil, 48 Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu (1988) 3 SCC 319 83