Abdur Rashid Vs Fida-ur-Rehman

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

R.F.A. No.28/2010.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 02.12.2015

Appellant-Petitioner Abdur Rashid by Mr. Muhammad Ghazanfar Ali Advocate

Respondent Syed Fida ur Rehman Shah by Mr.

Abdul Qayyum Qureshi Advocate.

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, J.-

Appellant Abdul Rashid, through the instant regular first appeal, being filed under Section 15 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 read with Section 96 C.P.C., has impugned the judgment dated 14.4.2010, rendered by learned Additional District Judge-VI, D.I.Khan, whereby suit of the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of Rs:10 Millions, was dismissed by the trial Court.

2.Brief facts of instant appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had instituted a suit for damages against the respondents-defendants in the Court of District Judge, D.I.Khan, wherein it has been urged that because of defamatory publication, appellant had sustained loss to his reputation which underestimated him in the society. The suit was contested by respondent-defendant No.1 who Kifayat/*

submitted written statement. The learned trial Court, out of divergent pleadings of the parties, framed as many as six issues excluding the relief. During course of appellant’s evidence, the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 14.4.2010, dismissed the suit being not maintainable. Hence, the instant appeal.

3.Arguments heard and record gone

through.

4.The learned counsel for appellant

argued that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is against the spirit of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, as the Ordinance is silent about summary dismissal of the plaint, so he termed the judgment and decree of trial Court, is perverse, illegal and without lawful authority, lastly he submitted that the same be set aside and the case be remanded back to trial Court for decision afresh after recording pro and contra evidence.

5.On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent argued that, the appellant-plaintiff has no cause of action and the advertisement on the basis of which the suit has been brought does not come under the purview of defamation. He strongly supported the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and solicited for dismissal of appeal.

Kifayat/*

6.The word “Defamation” has been

defined in section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, as follows:

“Any wrongful act or publication or circulation of a false statement or representation made orally or in written or visual from which injures the reputation of a person, tends to lower him in the estimation of others or tends to reduce him to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike, contempt or hatred shall be actionable defamation”.

In the light of above, definition if impugned advertisement is proved even a man of ordinary prudence cannot term it as a defamatory material. So far summary dismissal/rejection is concerned, no doubt that the Ordinance contains no provision regarding summary dismissal/rejection of a plaint, but Section 10 of the Act ibid, provides that, “the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O.

No.10 of 1984) shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the proceedings under this Ordinance”. So, by applying provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court can at any time reject the plaint and for this purpose the Court without waiting for an application from defendant’s side can invoke the provisions of this rule, if in the opinion of the Court, the provisions of above rule is attractive. Reliance is placed on Kifayat/*

2012 CLC-773. The wisdom behind this rule is to save the parties from agony of frivolous litigation.

7.The crux of above discussion is that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is in accord with law and there is no occasion to set it aside. Consequently, the instant appeal being meritless is dismissed.

Announced.

Dt: 02.12.2015 JUDGE

JUDGE

Kifayat/*