| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 135 2011 SLD 135 2011 CLD 1196 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.952 and C.M.A. No.12872 of 2010, decision dated: 20-05-2011, hearing DATE : 2-05-2011
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Habib ur Rehman and Hasan Hashimi for Plaintiff. Ali Almani and Sami-ur-Rehman for Defendant.
Suit No.952 and C.M.A. No.12872 of 2010, decision dated: 20-05-2011, hearing DATE : 2-05-2011
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Habib ur Rehman and Hasan Hashimi for Plaintiff. Ali Almani and Sami-ur-Rehman for Defendant.
A. KHALID ANSARI
VS
MIR SHAKIL UR RAHMAN
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O. VII, R.11(a) & O.XXIX, R.1---Suit against Director of company for recovery of money for work done for registered company---Maintainability---Plea of plaintiff was that defendant was holding majority shares in the company, while remaining shares thereof had been distributed amongst his own kin and kiths, thus, suit was maintainable---Validity---Facts stated in plaint for purposes of O.VII; R.11, C.P.C. must be assumed to be true---Documents annexed with plaint showing suit claim to be against company---Liability to pay suit amount, if any, was that of company and not of defendant director personally---Company being a separate legal entity in its own right, thus, any liability thereof would solely and exclusively be that of company and not of its officer, directors or shareholders---Limited number of statutory and judicially evolved exceptions to such rule were not applicable to the present case---Plaint for not disclosing any cause of action against defendant was rejected in circumstances. (b) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 2(e), 3(4) & 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11(a)---Suit for damages---Defamation by e-mail sent by defendant to plaintiff---Application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint for not disclosing any cause of action against defendant---Validity---Defamation by e-mail was clearly libel in terms of S.3(4) of Defamation Ordinance, 2002---Defendant had attached e-mail of a journalist with his e-mail---Such e-mail of journalist, if libelous, was a libel committed by such journalist and not defendant merely its recipient and- not its author or originator---Plaintiff had not pleaded in plaint that there was possibility of defendant having dictated such e-mail to his Secretary---Dictation of e-mail by defendant to Secretary would constitute a distinct and separate publication in its own right---Each act of publication of alleged defamation being a separate act of defamation must be alleged, pleaded and proved accordingly---Plaintiff had to prove defamation, and if publication was denied by defendant, then he had to prove publication as well---Plaint did not…
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