| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 115 2015 SLD 115 2015 PLD 42 2015 PLJ 173 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2006, decided on 17th September, 2014. (On appeal from the judgment dated 23-1-2006, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in R.F.A. No. 62 of 2002)
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, MUSHIR ALAM AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 302 of 2006, decided on 17th September, 2014. (On appeal from the judgment dated 23-1-2006, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in R.F.A. No. 62 of 2002)
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, MUSHIR ALAM AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
LIBERTY PAPERS LTD. and others
VS
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
Law: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)
Section: 3,9
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 19,20
(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--- ----S. 3---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 19 & 20-Defamatory and libelous material published in a newspaper-Place of instituting suit for defamation-Option for plaintiff-Jurisdiction of courts in defamation cases lay both where the newspaper was published and where it was circulated, with the option to be used by the plaintiff-- Cause of action needed to arise only in part in a jurisdiction for it to be an open option for the plaintiff---Significant readership and distribution of newspaper in a city qualified as 'cause of action', in part at least. Altaf Gauhar v. Wajid Shamsul Hasan and another PLD 1981 Kar. 515; Mazhar Valjee v. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi 2004 YLR 2525; Messrs Rahe Manzil Transport and others v. M. Ameen PLD 1963 Kar. 182; Abdul Hakim and others v. Saad Ullah Khan PLD 1970 SC 63 and Province of Punjab through District Collector Mianwali and others v. Mahmood ul Hassan Khan 2007 SCMR 933 ref. (b) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--- ----S. 9--- Defamation--- Remedies--- Damages--- "Compensatory", "general" and "aggravated damages"---Scope. Compensatory damages themselves could be divided into general and special. Plaintiff who won a defamation action was entitled to an award of general damages, compensating him for the injury to his reputation and feelings by being proportionate to the damage which the plaintiff had suffered and nothing greater than what was necessary to provide adequate compensation and to re-establish his reputation. General damages were based on the matters of vindication, injury to reputation and injury to feelings. Plaintiff should be able to point to the sum awarded as a demonstration to the world at large that the allegations in question were baseless. Sometimes restoration to the pre-publication status quo was not possible so the general damages purely reflected the damage caused by the defamatory publication. Unapologetic behavior of defendant could lead to award of aggravated damages. If the publisher of defamatory material was unable to establish the factual correctness of the material published, malice on the publisher's part would stand established through…
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