| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 619 2011 SLD 619 2011 CLC 609 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.230 of 2003, heard on 11-11-2010
SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD AND CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, LI
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Regular First Appeal No.230 of 2003, heard on 11-11-2010
SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD AND CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, LI
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TRUST SECURITIES AND BROKERAGE LIMITED through Authorised Officer
VS
Dr. Syed SIBITUAL HUSNAIN
Law:
Section:
a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)-------Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Allegation of loss of reputation---Suit for damages---Trial Court decreed the suit---Defendant contended that after promulgation of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, civil suit was not maintainable---Validity---Suit was maintainable for having been filed before promulgation of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 which was not enforced with retrospective effect---Where a law had been repealed or amended, proceeding pending at the time of the repeal would be decided under the repealed law as if the law had not been repealed---Language of the notices in question was neither threatening nor humiliating---Plaintiff's contention that he suffered humiliation and mental agony was misconceived as he could not be presumed to have read the notices aloud in public---Evidence produced by plaintiff did not disclose the time of receiving said notices---Written reply of the notices was not exhibited---Plaintiff could not derive any benefit from said written reply without being cross-examined---Claim of damages having not been detailed in the plaint, suit could not proceed---Evidence produced by plaintiff could not establish that notices of demand were defamatory and caused mental torture to him---Statutory law had provided for notice of demand which was simply a reminder to do an act within stipulated time---Courts below grossly misread the evidence---Equal protection of law and treatment in accordance with law were inalienable rights of every citizen--Evidence produced by plaintiff did not constitute defamation as the notices of demand issued to the plaintiff, were not published or circulated widely in newspaper---Plaintiff could not made out a case for damages on account of loss of reputation---Appeal was accepted in circumstance. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Where a law had been repealed or amended, proceeding pending at the time of the repeal would be decided under the repealed law as if the law had not been repealed. Abdul Majeed for Appellant. Atta-ur-Rehman Sh. and Ch. Fazal Ilahi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th November, 2010. JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---…
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