Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: XXXIX,1,2

Law: Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Section: LVI,3

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 14,19,199

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002), S.3--Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 14 & 19---Suit for recovery of damages under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002---Limited interim injunction, grant of---Principles--Preventing irreparable harm during pendency of suit---Allegations of sexual harassment were made by petitioner (lady) against the respondent---Suit for damages was filed by respondent against the petitioner claiming substantial reputational harm arising from sexual harassment allegations---Interim injunction was granted by Trial Court restraining the petitioner from making any statement regarding the subject matter of the alleged defamation until the disposal of the suit---Legality---At present preliminary stage, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations could not be determined without recording of evidence---Repetition or continuous propagation of such allegations, while the matter was sub judice, would amount to conducting a parallel media trial, which was neither permissible nor desirable in the interest of justice and fair adjudication---Respondent had successfully established a prima facie case in his favour; the allegations levelled against him, if found to be untrue, were of such a nature that they directly struck at his dignity, honour and professional credibility---Material available on record prima facie showed that the suit raised serious triable issues requiring evidence, and therefore, the respondent could not be left remediless during pendency of the proceedings---Balance of convenience also tilted heavily in favour of respondent--If the injunction was not maintained, respondent would continue to suffer damage to his reputation on a daily basis---On the contrary, the petitioner would not suffer any irreparable prejudice by being restrained from making statements relevant to the controversy till the matter was decided on merits---Restraint imposed was temporary in nature and subject to the final outcome of the suit--Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion by imposing a limited and reasonable restriction, instead of a blanket prohibition,…