1. We do not agree with the Judge below that this suit is not maintainable. It is a suit to recover damages for abusive language of a very vile character, alleged to have been used by the defendant to the plaintiff. We do not propose to lay down as a general rule that the use of every kind of abusive language is actionable. But we think that language, which, having regard to the definition of 'defamation' in the Indian Penal Code, is calculated to injure the reputation,--language, which, having regard to the respectability and position of the person abused, is calculated to outrage his feelings, lower the estimation in which he is held by persons of his own class, and so bring him into disrepute, is actionable. We think there is no doubt that the language alleged to have been used in this case comes within this principle. In so deciding we follow several rulings of this Court, namely, Moulvie Gholam Hossin v. Hur Govind Das 1 W.R. 19; Shaikh Tukee v. Shaikh Khoshdel Biswas 6 W.R. 151; Kali Kumar Mitter v. Ramgati Bhattacharjee 6 B.L.R. App. 99; Gour Chunder Putteelundee v. Clay 8 W.R. 256; and Srikant Roy v. Satcori Shaha 3 C.L.R. 181; in the note to which last other cases decided by other High Courts are quoted. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the lower Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit and remand the case for trial upon the merits; The question of damages of course will have to be dealt with by the Judge below on the evidence.
2. The appeal is decreed with costs, which will be costs in the cause.