1999CLC958 (PLP)

3. I have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at length and carefully perused the material on the record. He has strenuously urged that the general behaviour of the doctor with his patients was not good which was proved through the evidence of D.Ws. Nos. l to 6, that the reputation of respondent No. l not being good the news item did not amount to a tort because it was based on information gathered from different patients and was meant to highlight his harsh treatment towards patients; that the petitioner had acted with bona fide intention and merely desired that further inquiry be held in the matter; that although the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 were arrayed as respondents in the suit the decree was illegally passed only against the petitioner because in the operative part pertaining to relief the word "defendant" has appeared. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the judgment reported as Mian Sohail Iftikhar and another v. The Daily Nawa‑e‑Waqt, Lahore etc. 1981 CLC 474 (Karachi). Before examining the contentions raised by the petitioner's learned counsel, it would be appropriate to reproduce the news item for ready reference it reads as under:‑‑ 5.A bare reading of the news item shows that it was not merely confined to the alleged ill‑treatment of the doctor towards his patients but contained allegations of professional incompetence, misconduct, failure to perform duty in the hospital for full duty hours, lack of attention and rudeness towards the patients and depriving a large number of patients of their eye‑sight due to his wrong treatment and incompetence. It is also alleged therein that he gets commission from some opticians and gives their address to all the patients. Even if it is presumed that generally the treatment of respondent No.1 with his patients was 'rude, the same was hardly sufficient to justify publication of the ,above‑quoted news item which embodies a number of other ill‑founded allegations. The same are sufficient to cause a grave legal injury to a Government servant and a professional person. In this news item respondent No.. 1 has been depicted as a rude, incompetent and greedy person who also commits misconduct in the performance of his official duties. It was alleged that' a large number of persons had lost their eye‑sight due to wrong diagnoses of their ailment by the doctor/respondent No. l but no pro f to substantiate the same was brought on the record. It was stated at the end of the news item that the names and other details of persons who had lost their eye sight would be published in the next issue of the newspaper but the needful was not done.

6. The judgment in the case of Mian Sohail Iftikhar and another (relied upon by the petitioner's learned counsel) is of no help to him. In the said case it was held that a publication should not go beyond the limits of a fair comment on the subject‑matter discussed in the publication. Relying on an earlier judgment reported as O.M. Qarni v. Mir Khalilur Rehman and 4 others PLD 1975, Kar. 379 it was held that the defence of fair comment did not extend to cover misstatement of facts muchless false assertions of facts, however, bona fide. 1 may also mention here that in an action for tort a defendant can set up three defences:‑‑ (i) Justification/truth. (11) Fair comment (iii) Privilege (qualified or absolute). In his written statement, the petitioner/defendant had set up the first defence of justification or truth in paras. 10 and 12 which are reproduced below for ready reference:‑‑ Obviously, the defence of fair comment was not raised by the petitioner/defendant. As regards justification/truth, had the petitioner confined the news item merely to the alleged rough and rude behaviour of respondent No. l with the patients, perhaps he could have escaped tortious liability because there was some material on the record regarding strict or harsh behaviour of respondent No.

1. The statement of respondent No. l shows that he is a disciplinarian and in the habit of seeing the patients at their turn without any exception. His strictness in this behalf might have created certain situations in which he had to be somewhat harsh. However, as mentioned above, the news item contains wild allegations of incompetence and misconduct against respondent No.l. It appears that the defendant was personally aggrieved against the behaviour of respondent No. l as he had an altercation with him. The same is stated in para.9 of the written statement which reads as under:‑‑ This gives a clue to the petitioner's personal hostility against respondent No.l. That is why he ventured to have the above‑quoted news item published in the newspaper without verifying the truth. The news item seen in the light of the petitioner's personal grievance against respondent No. l, smacks of mala fide intention to defame him. In their book on "Tort" winfield and Folowicz say:‑‑ .... A statement which disparages a man in his reputation in relation to his office, profession, calling trade or business may be defamatory, e.g. the imputation of some quality which would be detrimental. or the absence of some quality which is essential to the successful carrying on of his office, trade or profession, such as want of ability, incompetence and, of course, dishonest or fraudulent conduct." (11th Edition page 274) The imputations made against respondent No.l tend to lower him in the estimation of the right thinking people of the society generally. In an action for defamation regarding disparaging statements about any office, profession. calling or business of a person, it is not necessary to allege or prove special damage. It is sufficient to show that the spoken or written words are reasonably likely to injure a person in his office, profession, calling, "trade or business. In the case of Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani v. Z.A. Suleri and another PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 747, it was held: "The law draws no distinction in this respect between ordinary persons and those connected with journalism and it is clear that in law a journalist is bound to bestow the same amount of care and attention as anyone else. From the commonsense point of view, it would appear that those who publish newspapers have to be more careful before publishing an imputation which on the face of it is defamatory because what a man says will be heard by few while what appears in a newspaper will be read by very many."

7. The argument that the suit was filed against the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 but the decree had been passed only against the petitioner even if admitted to be correct does not absolve the petitioner of his tortious liability. I may observe here that the suit was contested only by the petitioner who was defendant No. l before the trial Court. Issues Nos.3 and 4 were decided against the "defendants". Therefore, in para.12 of the judgment of the trial Court relating to "relief", typing of the word "defendant" instead of "defendants" might be a clerical error. Anyhow, this aspect of the matter is left to be considered and decided by the trial Court/the executing Court.

8. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on the record and rightly recorded findings on Issues Nos. l and 4 against the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional defect in the judgments/decrees of the Courts below or r commission of any material irregularity on their part to justify interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑964/L Revision dismissed