Law:

Section:

Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--- ----Ss. 3 & 2(dd)---Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001), S. 88---Defamation---Originator, scope of---Suit for damages on account of defamation was dismissed---Plaintiff had sought damages on ground of alleged defamation caused when defendant moved application before Nazim, Union Council stating that the plaintiff had usurped the property of lawful owners; which was also published as a newspaper story---Validity----Culpability and criminality of an act under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was conditioned with the falsehood of the statement, representation or the publication in question---Falsehood of the application made by the defendants before the Nazim, Union Council, did not appear from the record, to be proved---Distinction had to be drawn between a statement which was not proved and which was explicitly proved to be false, an element which was missing in the present case---Said application was made to the Nazim, Union Council for resolution of a dispute, which was provided under S. 88 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001---Plaintiff had been unable to prove that the making of the complaint before Nazim was designed to end in its publication of the newspaper---Gap between making of the application before the Nazim and its publication in the newspaper denied the element of actionable foreseeable republication---Link between the defendant and the newspaper publisher necessary to make the defendant liable, was missing---In absence of a conspiracy between the defendant and the publisher to defame the plaintiff, defendant could not be held liable for defamation---Originator was sued on account of his vicarious liability with the principal accused, however, in the present case the publisher had been spared and only the defendant was being prosecuted by the plaintiff, and defendant could not be termed to be originator of the publication and of the alleged defamation---No illegality in order of Trial Court was found---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad v. Mst. Shamim Hashmi 2007 CLC 941; Barrett v. Rosenthal, a 2006 California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation;…

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