PLJ 2024 Quetta 21 (DB)
Present : ABDULLAH BALOCH AND ROZI KHAN BARRECH , JJ.
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB --Appellant
versus
ZAHIR SHAH--Respondents
R.F.A. No. (T)3 of 2022, decided on 15.11.2022.
Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (LVI of 2002) --
----Ss. 8, 9, 12 & 15-- Suit for defamation and recovery of damages --Dismissed --Allegation of financial loss to
reputation of appellant --No date and month was mentioned by appellant in his plaint --Legal notice issued to
respondent --Inquiry report --Filing of reference against appellant --Respondent was recorded statement against
appellant --No estimation and calculation was given by appellant --No date or month has been mentioned by
appellant in his plaint that where and when respondent caused financial loss to him and who are persons before
whom his reputation was disrepute and damaged, and what words stated in said statement were derogatory and
defamatory and just stated that allegation leveled against him in said statement is bald allegations against him by
respondent which were not enough to assess that there was any derogatory word which disreputes him in public
at large or to his friends and relatives --Appellant has not complied with mandatory requirements of Rules 2 and
4 in order to justify or even plead its case for damages on account of alleged defamation--Facts averred and
allegations made in plaint do not disclose any cause of action--If appellant’s suit is allowed to proceed further, it
would be a glaring violation of relevant provisions of Ordinance --Allegedly appellant knew about falls
allegations as contained in statement before NAB Authorities but he Issued notice to respondent with a delay of
ten months and twenty days, and suit was filed in year 2022--Impugned judgment of the trial Court has rightly
been passed, and the Court has correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under the law. No illegality or
irregularity has been pointed out.
[Pp. 24, 25 & 26] A, C, E, F & H
PLD 2008 SC 371 ref.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) --
----O.VI Rr. 2 & 4 --Statement of material facts --Requirements --Under Rule 2 of Order VI, C.P.C., every pleading
shall contain a statement of material facts in a concise form on which party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as 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 pleadings. [P. 24] B
Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (LVI of 2002) --
----Ss. 3, 8 & 12 --Pre -requisites --It Is also a pre -requisite to initiate an action under Ordinance that plaintiff shall,
within two months after 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 absence thereof, no action
lies. [P. 24] D
Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (LVI of 2002) --
----S. 12 --Limitation --A period of limitation for filing of suit for damages on account of defamation has been
prescribed in Section 12 of Defamation Ordinance 2002, which is six months after publication of defamatory
material --Defamation Ordinance 2002 is a special law which has prescribed limitation for filing suit for
defamation, and Limitation Act does not apply in present case.
[P. 25] G
Mr. Abdul Lateef , Advocate for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 2.11.2022.
O
RDER
Rozi Khan Barrech, J. --The appellant/plaintiff Muhammad Yaqoob, son of Qadir Bakhsh, assailed the
judgment dated 13.10.2022 (“impugned judgment”) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gwadar (“trial
Court”) whereby Suit No. 03 of 2022 for Defamation and recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 200,00,000/ -under
the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was dismissed.
2 Briefly facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed suit for
defamation and recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 200 ,00,000/ -under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 before
the trial Court against the respondent/ defendant Zahir Shah, son of Abdul Ghani Shah, with the averment that he is
a well -reputed businessman and having good name and respect in the society. The National Accountability
Balochistan ( NAB ) Balochistan had conducted an inquiry about the gross mishap of lands in district Gwadar and
had filed references against the different persons, including the defendant. The respondent/defendant had recorded a
statement before the NAB Balochistan and levelled serious allegations against the appellant/plaintiff. After knowing
about those allegations had, issued a legal notice was to the respondent/defendant. Lastly, the appellant/plaintiff has
prayed in his suit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff by directing the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 200,00,000 /-as damages to the
appellant/plaintiff.
The suit was contested by the respondent being the defendant by means of filing a Written statement
denying the claim of the appellant/plaintiff on legal as well as factual grounds. Out of the pleadings of the parties,
the trial Court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether by recording the statement before NAB authorities by defendant the plaintiff was defamed?
2. Whether the act of defendant amounts to defamation?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2 ,00,00,000/ -?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed for?”
3. After framing of issues, the trial Court directed the parties to produce their respective evidence, which
was recorded and finally, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.10.2022.
Whereafter the instant Appeal was filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and have gone through the record with his
able assistance.
5. The question in the instant case is whether recording the statement before the NAB Authorities by the
respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff was defamed and whether the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was
barred by time.
6. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that all the allegations made therein relate only to the alleged
defamation, 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 allegedly the statement recorded by the respondent/ defendant before the NAB Authorities, which does not come within the definition of defamation and the appellant did not disclose in his plaint that on which words or action of the respondent he received mental
agony and defamation. There was no decision of the Court in respect of the said statement allegedly recorded before
the NAB Authorities. No date or month has been mentioned by the appellant in his plaint that where and when the
defendant/respondent caused financial loss to him and who are the persons before whom his reputation was
disrepute and damaged, and the appellant did not clear in his plaint and evidence that what words stated in the said statement were derogatory and defamatory and just stated that the allegation levelled against him in the said
statement is bald allegations against him by the respondent which were not enough to assess/estimate that there was
any derogatory word which disreputes him in public at large or to his friends and relatives.
7. 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 requirements 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.
8. 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 alleged statement recorded by the respondent/defendant
before E the NAB Authorities has been mentioned, however, the appellant/plaintiff stated in his suit that “cause of
action for the present suit has accrued for the first time to the plaintiff on 30.09.2020 when the plaintiff learnt of
false allegations as contained in the statement before NAB hereinabove and secondly and finally on 29.08.2021
when plaintiff issued a legal notice to the respondent/defendant.”
From the plaint of the petitioner/plaintiff, it is clear that allegedly the appellant/plaintiff knew about the
falls allegations as contained in the statement before the NAB Authorities on 30.09.2020, but he issued notice to the
respondent/defendant on 19.08.2021 with a delay of ten months and twenty days, and the suit was filed in the year 2022.
9. 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 the Limitation Act does not apply in the present case.
10. The provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation 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 has not been set up as a defence. If from the statement 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 conclusion 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 the jurisdiction
vested in it under the law. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out. Therefore, this appeal merits no consideration and stands dismissed in limine .
(Y.A.) Appeal dismissedThis 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.