P L D 2026 Peshawar 145 (PLP)

S.M. ATTIQUE SHAH, ACJ.

The petitioner, through the instant civil revision petition, has assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 16.01.2016 and 07.l0.2020, rendered by the learned Civil Judge-IX, Peshawar and the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Peshawar, respectively, whereby he has been non-suited.

2. A meticulous examination of the record unveils that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10 million as damages and financial loss, based on allegations of wrongful detention and resultant reputational and commercial harm. It was asserted that the petitioner, a reputable businessman registered with the Chamber of Commerce since 1992 and a frequent Emirates Airlines traveler to the UK since 1995-96, embarked on a journey from Peshawar to Dubai on 22.03.2012, with onward travel to Manchester. Upon arrival in Dubai, he was detained by Emirates Security Staff for two days without legal justification, then deported to Peshawar and handed over to FIA Immigration Staff, who further detained him for several days. He was eventually released on surety bonds by order of the Deputy Director, FIA. Later, verification by the UK Embassy confirmed the genuineness of his passport and visa. The petitioner claims this episode caused him severe mental and physical suffering, commercial losses, and irreparable reputational damage, thereby compelling him to seek compensation through the present suit.

3. The respondents contested the suit through a written statement, raising legal and factual objections. After framing issues, recording evidence from both sides, and hearing arguments, the trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 16.01.2016. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the appellate court on 07.10.2020, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record of the case with valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. A careful appraisal of the impugned findings of both the learned courts below reveals no illegality, material irregularity, jurisdictional defect, or misreading or non-reading of evidence that would warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Although the petitioner appeared as PW-2 and reiterated the assertions made in his plaint, he failed to adduce any credible documentary evidence substantiating his claim of having sustained financial losses in the United Kingdom or of running a business therein. Notably, during cross-examination, the petitioner candidly admitted that he neither produced any annual financial statements nor engaged a chartered accountant to verify his alleged losses, which he claimed were based on mere estimation. He further conceded that no license, record, or verifiable proof was submitted regarding the purported import and export of vehicles and spare parts. Likewise, the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to establish the alleged mental anguish, reputational harm, or the illegality of his confinement. His own testimony revealed that he was not placed in a formal jail but was kept in a detention cell at the Dubai airport, and even expressed uncertainty as to whether the facility was under governmental control. These admissions collectively undermine the foundation of his claim and support the concurrent conclusion of the courts below that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish entitlement to the relief sought.

6. For the ascertainment and classification of claims for damages, the superior courts have consistently laid down well-defined guiding principles. The Apex Court in the case of Malik Gul Muhammad Awan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others (2013 SCMR 507), while elucidating the fundamental distinction between various classes of damages, held as under: "

4. It is by now a well-established principle that the person claiming special damages has to prove each item of loss with reference to the evidence brought on record and for general damages as claimed by the petitioner relating to mental torture, agony, defamation and financial loss, those are to be assessed following the Rule of Thumb and the said exercise falls in the discretionary jurisdiction of the court which has to decide it in the fact and circumstances of each case [...]"

7. The honorable Sindh High Court in Muhammad Kashif v. Furqan Karim and 2 others (2021 MLD 83 [Sindh]) further elucidated the above held principle as below: "13. [...] The nature of the damages claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant case falls within the ambit of general damages and special damages, which is required to be established through a cogent and reliable evidence, mere feeling of resentment in one's mind is not sufficient to establish general and special damages. And if a person claims mental torture/agony or damage/injury, initial burden would lie upon him to lead evidence on such point. Furthermore, determining the general damages for mental torture, agony, defamation and financial losses, they are to be assessed following the "rule of thumb" and the said exercise falls in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, which has to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon cases of Mst. Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others (2009 SCMR 623), Mubashir Ahmad v. Syed Muhammad Shah through Legal Heirs (2011 SCMR 1009), Dr. M. Raza Zaidi v. Glaxo Wellcome Pakistan Limited, Karachi (2018 MLD 1268) [...]

8. In view of the settled principles enunciated by the superior courts, it becomes evident that the petitioner was under a legal obligation to substantiate his claims for both special and general damages through cogent and credible evidence, which he demonstrably failed to do. There is no cavil with the proposition that the burden lies squarely upon a claimant to establish the alleged financial and reputational loss through reliable documentation and testimony, as held in M.D. Anwarullah Mazumdar v. Tamina Bibi and others (1971 SCMR 94); Haji Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Hussain Nawab (l992 CLC 1915) and Mst. Zainab and another v. Majeed Ali and another (1993 SCMR 356).

9. It is a trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through cogent, reliable, and concrete evidence, whereas general damages, such as mental agony and reputational harm, though not susceptible to precise quantification, still require credible proof of having been suffered. Reliance is placed on Mrs. Alia Tareen, Manageing Director, Pakistan General Hospital, Quetta and others v. Amanullah Khan, Advocate and 3 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 99) and Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem and others (2012 PLC (C.S.) 574).

10. In the present case, however, the petitioner neither substantiated his claims for special damages by producing documents such as tax returns, business records, bank statements, medical reports, or any other documentary evidence, nor could he credibly establish any basis for general damages. His assertions of mental torture and reputational damage, made without supporting medical or testimonial evidence, fall short of the legal threshold. Notably, the prayer clause of the plaint reflects a blended or composite claim comprising both special and general damages. However, the petitioner was under a legal obligation to distinctly plead and separately prove each head of claim in accordance with settled principles of law. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Hanif and others (2022 SCMR 1572) held as under: "6. [...] The survey of Prayer Clauses as incorporated in the plaint for the relief of damages, it is somewhat mix of special and general damages claim but no convincing evidence was adduced to the effect of sustaining any serious financial losses even no evidence was adduced with regard to the alleged irreparable losses or mental agony."

11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the dictum laid down by Superior Courts on the evidentiary threshold for claims of damages, it is manifest that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden required by law. In such circumstances, courts are not obliged to award compensation merely on the strength of uncorroborated allegations, however strongly expressed. Both courts below, having carefully considered the pleadings, evidence, and applicable legal standards, justifiably non-suited the petitioner through well-reasoned findings that do not warrant interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, C.P.C.

12. Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. UN/66/P Petition dismissed.