mit makes a statement in an article in a newspaper that both Balwant and Charanjit have been involved in siphoning off lakhs of rupees which were supposed to be for the development of a children’s park. Balwant and Charanjit work as secretaries in the same department of the government with Charanjit being the junior of Balwant. Amit claims that the siphoning off happened as a result of a conspiracy to which only Balwant and Charanjit were parties who managed to hoodwink the entire department. Amit makes a further claim that he has sufficient trail of documents in his possession to prove the joint involvement of Balwant and Charanjit. Balwant and Charanjit institute separate proceedings against Amit suing him for compensation. The suit instituted by Balwant is adjudicated first wherein Amit is held liable for defamation as he could not produce sufficient evidence to prove that his allegations were true. Amit is ordered by the court to pay damages of $ 5 lakhs to Balwant. Charanjit’s lawyer tries to bring this decision to the notice of the Court.

Determine whether the said decision can be a relevant fact in the suit by Charanjit.   15 Marks