2022 M L D 805
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
ABDUL BARI ---Petitioner
Versus
AKHTAR RASHEED, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION AIRPORT,
QUETTA and 5 others ---Respondents
R.F.A. No.89 of 2015, decided on 7th December, 2020.
(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002) ---
----Ss.3, 8 & 12--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11--- Suit for
defamation/damages against Police Officer for circulation of false statement/representation ---
Essentials ---Rejection of plaint ---Scope ---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court ---Validity ---No
estimation and clear calculation had been given by the appellant as to how and which act of the defendant caused financial loss, mental agony and defamation to the appellant wh ich was
not clear by the appellant in his plaint/suit ---Report submitted by the police officials before
the competent court of law did not come within the definition of "defamation" ---No
disclosure in plaint as to on which words/actions of the respondents petitioner/plaintiff
received mental agony and defamation which disrepute him in public at large or to his friends and relatives ---Appellant/plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory requirements
of Rr. 2 & 4 of O.VI of C.P.C.---Legal notice was given to the SHO of police station with a delay of more than eleven months ---Plaint did not disclose any cause of action ---No
date/month had been mentioned in plaint as to where/when the respondents caused financial loss and before whom reputation was disrepute and damaged--- Suit appeared to be barred by
limitation, so plaint should have to be rejected under O.VII, R.11 of C.P.C ---Impugned
judgment of the Trial Court had rightly been passed---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Raja Ali Shan v. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others 2007 SCMR 741 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O.VII, R.11---Rejection of Plaint--- Scope ---For deciding the question of rejection of
plaint, only the plaint and its accompaniments could be examined.
(c) Civil Procedure Co de (V of 1908) ---
----O.VII, R.11--- Rejection of Plaint--- Scope ---Object of R.11 of O.VII, C.P.C. was
primarily to save the parties from rigours of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings, and if the Court on the basis of averments ma de in the plaint and documents
available, concluded that even if all the allegations made in the plaint were proved, the
plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief claimed, the Court would be justified in rejecting the plaint in the exercise of powers a vailable under R.11 of O.VII, C.P.C.
Pakistan Agriculture Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Latif and
others PLD 2008 SC 371 rel.
(d) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002) ---
----S.12 ---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3 ---Special law ---Applicability ---Scope ---
Defamation Ordinance, 2002 is a special law which has prescribed limitation (six months since publication of the documentary material/matter) for filing suit for defamation and Limitation Act, 1908 does not apply in defamation cases.
Muhammad Usman Yousafzai for Appellant.
Miss Rubina Mohsin for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.
Date of hearing: 30th November, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J .----This appeal under section 96, C.P.C. has been filed
by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2015 ("impugned order") passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -IV Quetta ("trial court") whereby the suit filed
by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appell ant filed a suit bearing No.4/2015
before the trial court for defamation and damages to the tune of Rs.120,00,000/ - and
punishment for circulation of false statement and representation against the respondents with the following prayer:
"It is therefore re spectfully prayed that a decree in favour of plaintiff against the
defendants may kindly be passed directing the defendants jointly and severally to make payment of Rs.120,00,000/ - (Rupees One Crore and Twenty Lakhs) to plaintiff
as damages for circulating false statement and representation in general masses, with
further prayer to punish the defendants for their illegal, unwarranted and unjustified acts, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded in the circumstances of the case
is also solicited."
The suit was contested by respondents being defendants wherein they filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The said application was
contested by the appellant by means of filing rejoinder, whereby after hearing the arguments from both the parties, the application filed by respondents under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., was accepted vide impugned order dated 22nd September 2015 passe d by the trial court and
the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. Whereafter the instant appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and have perused the material available on record. In order
to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel and to ascertain whether the plaint
was liable to be rejected or not, the contents of the plaint and the averments, the assertions and allegations made therein were carefully examined by us.
4. It is well settled that for deciding the question of rejection of the plaint, only the
plaint and its accompaniments can be examined. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that all the allegation made therein rela te only to the alleged defamation, personal insecurity and
damages and loss caused to the reputation of the appellant but no estimation and clear calculation has been given by the appellant that how and which act of the defendant caused financial loss, mental agony and defamation to the appellant which is not clear by the appellant in his plaint/suit and the report submitted by the police officials before the competent court of law, which does not come within the definition of defamation and the appellant d id not disclose in his plaint that on which words or action of the official
respondents he received mental agony and defamation. There was no decision of the court in respect of the said report submitted by the police officials. No date or month has been mentioned by the appellant in his plaint that where and when the defendants/respondents
caused financial loss to him and who are the persons before whom his reputation was disreputed and damaged, and the appellant also did not clear in his plaint that what words stated in the said report were derogatory and defamatory and just stated that the allegation leveled against him in the said reports are bald allegations against him by the respondents which were not enough to assess/estimate that there was any derogatory word which disreputed him in public at large or to his friends and relatives. Only a general and the vague statement has been made in the plaint that legal rights, reputation and name of the plaintiff have been prejudiced that too because of a defamatory report made by the respondents
against him.
5. Under Rule 2 of Order VI, C.P.C., every pleading shall contain a statement of the
material facts in a concise form on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be; and under Rule 4 of Order VI, C.P.C., in all cases in which particulars may be necessary, such particulars with dates and items if necessary shall be stated in the pleadings. In our humble view, the appellant/plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory requireme nts of Rules 2 and 4 ibid in order to justify or even plead its case for damages on
account of the alleged defamation. We have come to the conclusion that the facts averred and the allegations made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action.
6. The suit is also barred by section 3 read with sections 8 and 12 of the Defamation
Ordinance, 2002. It is also a pre -requisite to initiate an action under the ibid Ordinance that
the plaintiff shall within two months after the publication of defamatory matter has come to
his notice or knowledge, shall give fourteen days notice in writing of his action to bring an action of his intention and in the absence thereof, no action lies. In view of the above clear cut provisions of the ibid Ordinance, if the appellant's suit is allowed to proceed further, it would be a glaring violation of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance. But no date of criminal revision petition allegedly filed by the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Quetta has been m entioned, however, the civil suit was filed by the
appellant against respondent No.4 and others on 01.07.2013, and legal notices was given to
the SHO of Police Station Airport Road Quetta on 27.06.2014 with a delay of more than eleven months.
7. Admittedly , a period of limitation for filing of suit for damages on account of
defamation has been prescribed in Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 which is six months after the publication of the defamatory material/matter. Defamation Ordinance 2002 is a special law which has prescribed limitation for filing suit for defamation and Limitation Act does not apply in the present case.
8. In the instant matter; the civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction
No.50/2013 was filed in the month of July 2013 and on the basis of said suit litigation
between the parties in respect of erection of gates was started, and the report was submitted in different courts by the official respondents, and the appellant claimed defamation on the basis of said reports. Even otherwise the appellant did not disclose any date, month and year
in his suit as to when the cause of action accrued to him and on the basis of documents available on record, it transpires that factually the litigation started between the parties in the year 2013, when the appellant filed the suit for mandatory injunction, whereas the present
suit was filed on 22.09.2014 with a delay of more than one year after submission of the report by official respondents wherein allegedly bald allegation was made agai nst the
appellant, hence the suit filed by the appellant was hopelessly time -barred, and the appellant
has also failed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay.
9. The provisions of Section 3 of the Limita tion Act are mandatory in nature that every
suit instituted after the period of limitation shall subject to the provisions of Sections 4 and 25 of the Limitation Act, be dismissed although limitation hits not been set up as a defence. If, from the statemen t of the plaintiff, the suit appears to be barred by limitation, the plaint
shall have to be also rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In Raja Ali Shan v. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others 2007 SCMR 741 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that it is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint if, on a perusal thereof, it appears that
the Suit is incompetent; and, the Court is not only empowered but also under an obligation to reject the plaint, even without any application from a party, if the same is hit by any of the
clauses mentioned under Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. In Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Latif and others, PLD 2008 Supreme Court 371, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. is
primarily to save the parties from rigours of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings, and if the Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and documents available, comes to the conc lusion that even if all the allegations made in the plaint are
proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief claimed, the Court would be justified in rejecting the plaint in the exercise of powers available under Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C.
In view of the above discussion, after evaluating the record, we have arrived to the
conclusion that the impugned judgment of the trial court has rightly been passed and the court has correctly exercised jurisdiction vested in it under the law. No illegalit y or
irregularity has been pointed out. Therefore, this appeal merits no consideration and stands
dismissed accordingly.
ZH/17/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.