Law: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)

Section: 3,12,15

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11,35-A,O.VII,R.11

(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--- ----S. 3---Defamation---Scope---Merely seeking remedy or making applications to authorities for enforcement or protection of one's right or redressal of one's grievance would not fall within ambit of "defamation" and not be termed as such. Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Hashmi 2007 CLC 941 rel. (b) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--- ----Ss. 3, 12 & 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 11, 35-A & O.VII, R. 11---Appeal---Suit for recovery of damages/compensation---Plaintiff's plea was that defendant being his son-in-law after having turned out his daughter from house had started to defame him, his daughter and family by moving against them deliberate false publications before different authorities---Defendant's application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint on account of not disclosing cause of action and suit was barred by principle of res judicata---Defendant's plea was that plaintiff for being habitual litigant had filed several such suits previously, which had ended in favour of defendant---Rejection of plaint by Trial Court---Validity---According to defendant as plaintiff was using illegal means and tactics to harass him, thus, he made applications to certain authorities for protection of his right---Defendant had not published or circulated any false statement in newspaper to injure reputation of plaintiff or lower him in estimation of others---Merely making applications to authorities for redressal of one's grievance could not be termed as "defamation"---Plaintiff had earlier filed against defendant about eight suits for damages on account of defamation almost on similar facts and grounds and 19 other cases---Plaint in such previous suits had been rejected---Plaintiff from his such conduct appeared to be habitual litigant, who had been dragging defendant in different proceedings for recovery of damages/compensation just to tease him---Without taking strict actionagainst plaintiff, there would not be end to such litigation---Trial Court had notimposed compensatory costs upon plaintiff under S. 35-A, C.P.C., which Appellate Court was not competent to do.---High Court dismissed…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492