2020 PLP 1357 (MLD)

ALI BAIG, J.

These revision petitions bearing Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 85/2019, 86/2019 and 88/2019 have been preferred against the impugned judgment/order dated 26-06-2019, passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit, whereby, the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the present petitioners/ defendants filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of the above mentioned three civil revision petitions as all the three revision petitions arise out of the same judgment/order dated 26-06-2019 passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit and common question of law and facts are also involved in all the three revision petitions.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant revision petitions are that the present respondents/plaintiffs instituted suits for recovery of Rs.10,000,000/- (one crore) against the present petitioners/defendants in the trial court claiming that the defendants/petitioners have defamed the respondents/plaintiffs by publishing defamatory material against the plaintiffs in Daily Bang-e-Sahar dated 02-11-2014.

4. The present petitioners/defendants before filing of their written statement filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in the trial court mainly on the ground that suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is time barred and petitioner No.1, namely Saeedullah Yousafzai, the then MD NATCO, has been transferred from the post of MD NATCO.

5. The present respondents/plaintiffs contested the aforesaid application by filing their replication denying the contents of application filed by the present petitioners/defendants under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

6. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the aforesaid application of the present petitioners/defendants filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. vide the impugned judgment/ order dated 26-06-2019, hence these revision petitions.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly time barred and liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., but the learned trial court failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of law and has wrongly dismissed the petition of petitioners filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that contesting plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been transferred from the post of MD NATCO and he is no more office bearer of NATCO, therefore, by accepting these revision petitions, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court may be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents may be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the aforesaid grounds.

8. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently opposed these revision petitions by contending that limitation is mixed question of law and facts which can be decided after recording of evidence of the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioners/defendants had been publishing defamatory material time and again against the present respondents/defendants, therefore, suit for damages on account of defamation had been filed against the petitioners/defendants and the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of petitioners/defendants filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. vide the impugned order dated 26-06-2019 which may be maintained.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Admittedly, period of limitation for filing of suit for damages on account of defamation has been prescribed in Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 which is six months after the publication of the defamatory material/matter. Defamation Ordinance 2002 is special law which has prescribed limitation for filing suit for defamation and Limitation Act does not apply in the present case. In the instant matter; in Civil Suit No.53/2016 (Revision Petition No.85/2019), the defamatory material was published on 02-10-2014 and suit was filed on 06-09-2016, after about one year and 11 months of the publication of defamatory material, in Suit No.52/2016 (Revision Petition No.86/2019), the defamatory material was published on 13-07-2015 and suit was filed on 06-09-2016, after lapse of about one year and 2 months of the publication of defamatory material against the respondents and in Suit No.54/2016 (Revision Petition No.88/2019), the defamatory material was published on 10-07-2015 and suit was filed on 06-09-2016, after lapse of about one year and 2 months of the publication of defamatory material against the respondents/plaintiffs. Hence, all the aforesaid three suits were hopelessly time barred and the plaintiffs have also failed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, for condonation of delay in filing of suit, therefore, liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Since the suit appeared from the statement of the plaintiff is barred by law, therefore, the trial court is not required to frame issues and to record evidence as the plaint was liable to be outright rejection.

11. The provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act are mandatory in nature that every suit instituted after the period of limitation shall subject to the provisions of Sections 4 and 25 of the Limitation Act, be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as defence. If, from the statement of the plaintiff, the suit appears to be barred by limitation, the plaint shall have to be rejected also under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In this connection, wisdom is drawn from the reported judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1985 page 153 and judgment of Lahore High Court reported in 2003 YLR 2082 Lahore.

12. For what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial court has committed material irregularity and illegality while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., hence these revision petitions are allowed. Consequently, the suits of the respondents/plaintiffs are rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. being hopelessly time barred. Certified true copy of the judgment be placed on Revision Petitions Nos.86/2019 and 88/2019. File. ZC/172/GB Revisions allowed.