2023 PLP 937 (MLD)

RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.

Through the instant revision petition order dated 01.2.2023 has been called into question whereby the application of the petitioner for framing of additional issues was dismissed.

2. The respondent instituted a suit under the provisions of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 against the petitioner, Shahid Mehmood Dar and three others, namely, Syed Hashim Hussain, Hassan Mahmood and Ghulam Hussain as defendants Nos. 1 to 4 respectively, attributing them certain acts that attracted the claimed liability for defamation. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed his separate written statement raising his defense whereas defendants Nos. 2 to 4 submitted a joint written statement placing their stance on record. Out of divergent pleadings inter se, vide order dated 19.11.2018, the trial court framed five issues and directed the parties to submit their respective lists of witnesses coupled with their certificates of readiness to produce evidence within seven days; and adjourned the case for 10.1.2019 for evidence of the plaintiff. As per noting on the order-sheet, list of witnesses of the plaintiff/respondent and defendants Nos. 2 to 4, was attached on 26.11.2018. The petitioner has omitted to place the order-sheet for 10.1.2019 or thereafter as to show the proceedings till September of year 2022; when on 29.9.2022 learned counsel for the plaintiff made a statement that the suit was being withdrawn to the extent of defendants Nos.2 to 4 as they had published an apology in their publication 'and tendered apology and, therefore, the plaintiff did not want to pursue his claim against said defendants and based on this the suit was dismissed as withdrawn to their extent and the matter was adjourned to 08.10.2022 for recording the remaining evidence of the plaintiff/respondent. An application for framing additional issues was filed by the petitioner at this stage alleging that "inadvertently" complete issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties could not be framed vide order dated 19.11.2018 and further that order dated 29.9.2022 dismissing the suit to the extent of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as withdrawn also necessitated framing additional issues which application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 01.2.2023.

3. Heard.

4. Perusal of the documents appended with the instant petition reveals that suit for defamation was instituted by the respondent alleging that since 1985 he had been in poultry business and was elected to various positions within the Pakistan Poultry Association during the course of which he earned reputation and esteem for his purported contributions to the poultry industry; that petitioner as Chief Executive, Cherry Pharmaceutical International and as member of Pakistan Poultry Association levelled "false and defamatory allegations" against him which were made in a "a letter dated 23th October 2013" bearing specified title to "24 key members" of the said association and then he repeated them in "an interview published in October 2013 issue of AVN (Agro Veterinary News), a monthly veterinary magazine with wide circulation amongst the members of PPA". Based on these instances a declaration was sought against the petitioner, defendant No.1, for publication and circulation of the alleged letter dated 23.10.2013 and reiteration during an interview with AVN which was published and circulated in October 2013 issue by defendants Nos.2 to 4 for which aspect the latter set was also claimed to be liable. Five issues were framed by the trial court vide order dated 19.11.2018 based on the contents of the plaint and the two written statements, one by petitioner defendant No.1 raising his independent and self-contained defense and the joint one by defendants Nos.2 to 4 putting up their separate joint defense.

5. By his application at evidence stage the petitioner has sought framing of three additional issues under Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C. to the effect whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable; whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff; and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. with onus on the petitioner defendant No.1. Perusal of order dated 19.11.2018 shows that five issues framed included an issue relating to limitation with onus on petitioner as defendant No.1, two issues viz. cause of action and mala fide qua defendants Nos. 2 to 4 with onus on the said defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and issues Nos. 4 and 5 qua entitlement to decree and relief. Petitioner by his application sought framing of a separate issue each on cause of action, maintainability and rejection of pliant at this stage. It is settled rule that issues are not framed on each and every ground raised in the pleadings and if a composite issue is framed parties can produce their evidence respectively and no exception can be taken thereto as it does not prejudice anyone. Reference can be made here to the rule in "Qaim Din v. Said Ahmad and another" (PLD 1967 Lah. 1171). Scrutiny of issue No.4 already framed vide order dated 19.11.2018 shows that it is to the effect whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for defamation and damages under the provisions of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 which is a comprehensive and composite issue that will obligate the plaintiff to establish all those events that constitute cause of action, right to seek relief on the basis thereof as well as the enforceability/maintainability of the claim in law and fact and shall also enable the petitioner defendant to produce his entire evidence in defense based on his written statement inclusive of his legal plea qua the maintainability of the claim. Petitioner's plea for framing of the issues contained in the application, as such, is not well-conceived and was correctly turned down by the learned Additional District Judge. It may be added that the petitioner's plea for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. did not need framing of a separate issue this being a legal objection required to be taken at early stage that may even otherwise be not well-placed in view of the stance in the plaint and the specific defense raised by the petitioner in his written statement.

6. As a result of the above the instant revision petition is meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. IH/S-15/L Revision Petition dismissed.