2024 PLP 1190 (CLC)
Syed FEROZE ALI — Plaintiff Versus Messrs AURORA BROADCASTING SERVICE (PVT.) LTD. and 7 others — Defendants
| Citation | 2024 PLP 1190 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed FEROZE ALI — Plaintiff Versus Messrs AURORA BROADCASTING SERVICE (PVT.) LTD. and 7 others — Defendants |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1190 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1190 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 1190 (CLC) (Syed FEROZE ALI — Plaintiff Versus Messrs AURORA BROADCASTING SERVICE (PVT.) LTD. and 7 others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Sched. 1, Arts. 23, 24 & 25
Suit for damages for malicious prosecution, filing of
Plaintiff claimed damages against various sets of defendants including four broadcasting companies running their respective television channels on the assertion that he was wrongly arrested in pursuance of FIR at the behest of the defendant (citizen /complainant), and subsequently he (plaintiff) was acquitted by the Court
From a perusal of the plaint, it was apparent that the plaintiff had conflated a claim for malicious prosecution against the defendant/complainant with a claim for defamation, which encompassed the defendants (broadcasting companies)
Both said torts are separate from one another, having distinct elements and presenting unique causes of action with different periods of limitation, as prescribed under Arts. 23, 24 & 25 of Sched. 1 to the Limitation Act, 1908
Said Articles stipulate that the period of limitation for every description of suit (for compensation for malicious prosecution, for compensation for libel or for compensation for slander) is one year
In the present case, admittedly, a legal notice was sent to the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff after about two months of the news complained of being broadcast by the defendants / (broadcasting companies / television channels), which (notice) was replied to after two months or so
Whereas, the suit was filed by the plaintiff after more than 3 years and 3 months from the date of broadcast
Thus, claim advanced by the plaintiff against such defendants was time barred, thus it was unnecessary to dwell further on whether the claims could have been intertwined as claimed
Suit was dismissed on point of limitation, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J.
The Suit is one where the Plaintiff has claimed damages against various sets of Defendants severally in distinct sums, with the case set up through the pleadings being predicated on the assertion that he was wrongly arrested on 17.7.2013 in pursuance of FIR No.240/2013 registered at the New Town Police Station, Karachi, under Sections 392, 420 and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code at the behest of the Defendant No.8, with a report of his arrest having been aired by the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 on 17.07.2013 and 18.07.2013, and the ensuing criminal proceedings then terminating on 25.04.2016 through his acquittal under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.
2. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who are broadcasting companies running their respective television channels, have filed C.M.A. Nos. 3395/17 and 12820/22, with the first of those applications being one under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C, seeking that they be struck off from the proceedings and the second under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., that the plaint be rejected.
3. The common thread running through and intertwining both those applications of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 is that the same are predicated on the plea that the claim to their extent is barred by limitation.
4. Another Application under Order VII, Rule, C.P.C., bearing C.M.A. No. 15704/22, has also been filed on behalf of the Defendant No.8 on the ground that the Plaintiffs acquittal was the product of a compromise, from which it can be inferred that the underlying plea is perhaps that a cause of action is lacking.
5. From a perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has conflated a claim for malicious prosecution against the Defendant No.8 with a claim for defamation, which encompasses the Defendants Nos. 1 to
4. Both of those torts are separate from one another, having distinct elements and presenting unique causes of action with different periods of limitation, as prescribed under Articles 23, 24 and 25 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, 1908, being as follows: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from with period beings to run
23. For compensation for malicious prosecution One year When the plaintiff is an acquitted, or the prosecution is otherwise terminated
24. For compensation for libel. One year When the libel is published.
25. For compensation for slander. One year When the words are spoken or, if the words are not actionable in themselves, when the special damage complained of results.
6. Admittedly, the news complained of was broadcast by the Defendants 1 to 4 on 17.07.2013, with a legal notice in that regard having been sent to them on behalf of the Plaintiff on 20.09.2013, which was replied to on 09.10.2013. As the Suit was filed on 29.10.2016, more than 3 years and 3 months from that date, the claim advanced against those Defendants is time barred, with it thus being unnecessary to dwell further on whether the claims could have been intertwined as aforementioned. However, as for C.M.A. No. 15704/22, on a reading of the Order dated 25.04.2016, the same is found to be misconceived.
7. In view of the foregoing, the Suit stands dismissed as against the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, with the aforementioned Applications moved by them standing disposed of accordingly, whereas C.M.A. No. 15704/22 also stands dismissed. MQ/F-13/Sindh Suit dismissed.