2008 PLP 786 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ANSARULLAH — Petitioner Versus MASOOD BAKHTIAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 786 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANSARULLAH — Petitioner Versus MASOOD BAKHTIAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 786 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 786 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 786 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ANSARULLAH — Petitioner Versus MASOOD BAKHTIAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O.VII, R.11
Suit for recovery of amount as damages for defamation, mental torture and malicious prosecution--Plaintiffs had filed suit for recovery of Rs.4 crore as damages for defamation, mental torture and malicious prosecution against defendant--Defendant filed application under O.VII, R.11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, which was dismissed by the Trial Court
Question involved in the case was a question of fact, which was to be determined after recording pro and contra evidence of both the parties
Plaintiffs had properly valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and also disclosed the cause of action which was not barred by law
Discretion which was neither perverse nor arbitrary had been properly exercised by the court below
In absence of any illegality warranting interference, revision petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MUSADIQ HUSSAIN GILANI, J.
Heard. Contends that the suit for the recovery of Rs.4 Crore as damages for defamation, mental torture and malicious prosecution, was filed against him by the respondents wrongly. He contested the suit, and put in written statement, as well as application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The said application was contested by the respondents, and after hearing arguments, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the same, vide order, dated 22-2-2007. The petitioner stressed that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court ignored the material point in issue. Respondents were prosecuted in accordance with law, and there was no reason for filing suit for the recovery of damages. The trial Court was, therefore, bound to reject the plaint filed by the respondents without proceeding further, and by not doing so, material illegality was committed.
2. It is clear that parties are closely related to each other. From the petitioner, damages have been claimed, for malicious prosecution. The question involved is a question of fact, which is to be determined after recording pro and contra evidence of both the parties. The respondents have properly valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee, and jurisdiction, and also disclosed the cause of action which is not barred by law: In this regard, the discretion which is neither perverse nor arbitrary, has been properly exercised. There is also committed no illegality to warrant interference in revision. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T/27/P Petition dismissed.