Law: Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Section: 4,8,15

(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)---   ----Ss. 4, 8 15---Suit for recovery of damages---Publication of defamatory material in three leading newspapers of wide circulation causing mental torture to plaintiff and loss to his business and reputation---Filing of suit after giving notice thereof to defendant---Decree for Rs. 10,00,000 passed by Trial Court as against Rs.50,00,000 claimed in suit---Defendant’s plea was that plaintiff had failed to comply with mandatory provision of S. 8 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 for not having proved service of legal notice by examining official from Postal Department or producing postal receipt/A.D., or receipt of courier service---Validity---Defendant in written statement and during trial had not denied factum of convening press conference and levelling of allegations against plaintiff---¬Press clippings containing defamatory statements, when tendered in evidence by plaintiff, had not been objected to by defendant---¬Defendant had produced in evidence copy of such like material without proving its genuineness---Such notice despite being mandatory could be given by any means i.e. through a messenger, ordinary post or any other possible mode---Such prior notice of action given to defendant had not been specifically denied by him nor had he objected to its tendering in evidence by plaintiff---Plaintiff’s statement regarding giving prior notice of action to defendant had not been rebutted---Such notice of action would be presumed under law to have been given to defendant prior to filing of present suit--- Defendant’s such act was an actionable wrong, which had been proved, thus, no further and formal proof thereof would be required---¬Quantum of damages awarded by Trial Court was a bit harsh in absence of proof of special damages---General damages could be awarded keeping in view gravity of allegations and effect/size/influence of publication---High Court partially accepted appeal by awarding damages of Rs. 50,000 in given circumstances.    Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1971 SC 61; Badar Zaman v. Sultan 1996 CLC 202; Raja Hamayun Sarfaraz Khan and…

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