2015 PLP 339 (CLC)

ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J.

By way of this single judgment Civil Revisions Nos.532 to 556 of 2007 filed against the order dated 26-10-2007 of learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal and Civil Revisions Nos.362 of 2009 to 372 of 2009 filed against the order dated 2-7-2009 of the same learned Court, are being disposed of together as common question of law is involved in all these petitions.

2. Muhammad Sharif (petitioner in C.Rs. No.535 of 2007), Amjad Mahmood, (petitioner in C.Rs. Nos.541 and 545 of 2007), Haji Muhammad Azad (petitioner in C.R. No.365 of 2009), Muhammad Rafiq (petitioner in C.R. No.372 of 2009) and Haji Imdad Hussain, petitioner in rest of the civil revision petitions noted in the above para filed suits under the provisions of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter to be called as the Ordinance) against the respondents on the ground that they were respectable citizens having their business at Chakwal and the respondents had got published news items in the local Press which caused damage to their business as also defamed them in the estimation of right thinking citizens of the society and, therefore, the respondents are individually liable in each case to pay two crore rupees to the petitioners as defamation. Respondents (defendants in the said suits) were summoned by the learned trial Court who filed their written statements. The learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned orders directed the petitioners to affix court-fee of Rs.15,000 on each of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved of the said orders the petitioners have filed these petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no provision is available in the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 with respect to affixation of court-fee and as per section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 suits for defamation do not fall within the category of suits on which court-fee is liable to be levied as such the impugned orders are illegal and are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that suits for defamation are not exempted from court-fees as there is no provision in the Defamation Ordinance to exempt the cases of defamation from payment of court-fee and that the suit for defamation is essentially a suit for damages which falls within the category of suits described in section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as such the impugned orders are in accordance with law and the petitioners are liable to pay court-fee as directed by the learned trial Court.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It is case of the petitioners before the leaned trial Court that they have been defamed and thus their legal right has been infringed. Article 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides that dignity of man is his inviolable right. Although Article 19 ibid provides freedom of speech and expression but the same is not absolute right and is subject to certain restrictions and, therefore, casts fundamental duty on every person not to scandalize or defame any person under the garb of this right (Article 19). If a person feels aggrieved of any wrongful act, or publication or circulation of a false statement etc. which injures his reputation and lowers him in the estimation of others or reduces him to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike etc. he may resort to the Court for defamation under section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002. Section 9 of the Ordinance provides that where defamation is proved to have occurred, the Court may pass order directing the defendant to tender an apology, if acceptable to the plaintiff and publish the same in similar manner and with the same prominence as the defamatory statement made and pay reasonable compensatory damages as general damages with a minimum of Rs.50,000 and in addition thereto, any special damage incurred that is proved by the plaintiff' to the satisfaction of the Court. It further provides that in case of the originator the minimum compensatory damages as general damages shall be three hundred thousand rupees. Thus the ultimate relief for a person who has been aggrieved is that the wrong doer shall apologize to the person wronged and shall also publish the same in the same manner as defamatory statement was published and shall also pay damages to him.

7. Section 10 of the Ordinance provides that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 shall, mutatis mutandis apply to the proceedings under this Ordinance. Needless to mention that under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can be initiated to remedy the infringement of legal right. As the civil proceedings a suit has to be filed which are proceedings in a court for the enforcement of a right denoting legal proceedings of civil kind. These civil proceedings are instituted by presentation of a plaint. Under Order VII, Rule 1(i), C.P.C. the plaint shall contain inter alia a Statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and of court-fees. So far as jurisdiction is concerned, section 13 of the Ordinance provides that the District Court shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases under the Ordinance. With regard to court-fee, provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 are applicable. Needless to mention that Court Fees Act, 1870 is a special law and unless its operation is expressly barred, it shall remain applicable to all civil cases. As such court-fee on a suit for damages on the ground of defamation under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 is to be governed by section 7(i) of this Act as the same has not specifically or even impliedly been barred from implication of this Act. Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides methods regarding computation of fees payable in certain suits for money. Said section runs as under:

"(i) For money. In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance of annuities or of other sums payable periodically) according to the amount claimed:" A perusal of this provision of law would show that in the suits for money which of course includes suits for damages or compensation, the court-fee is leviable according to the amount claimed. Needless to mention that suit for defamation is essentially a suit for damages and compensation and the court-fee is leviable according to the amount claimed. The learned trial Court was therefore under statutory obligation to direct the petitioners to affix the required court-fee on the plaint.

8. Having thus arrived at the above conclusion, I do not find any illegality in the orders impugned herein directing the petitioner to affix the requisite court-fee. These petitions, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed.

9. Since operation of the impugned orders has been suspended by this Court, the office is directed to send a copy of this judgment immediately to the learned trial Court for information. KMZ/I-4/L Revision dismissed.