1995 PLP 1332 (CLC)

Reverting back to the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant/applicant, it would be advantageous. to reproduce Articles 24 and 25 of the Limitation Act, which read as follows: "

24. For compensation One year?????????? When the libel is published. for libel.

25. For compensation One year??????????? When the words are spoken, or, for slander.?????????????????????????????????????????? if the words are not actionable?? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? in themselves, When the special ??????????????????????? damage complained of results." Article 24 of the Act shows that the period of limitation will start from the date when the libel is published while Article 25 shows that the period of limitation will start from the. date when the words are first spoken or if the words are not actionable, in themselves, when the special damage complained of results. Both the Articles are in reference to compensation for libel and slander respectively. In the present case there is no publication whatsoever because according to the Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition the word "publication" means: "To make public; to make known to people 71in general; the act of publishing offering it to public notice, or rendering it accessible to public scrutiny. An advising of the public; a making known of something to them for a purpose." According to the above‑quoted definition of the word "publication", in the present case there is no publication, as such. Since both the above Articles of the Limitation Act deal with libel and slander, in my opinion, the same are not applicable in the present case. And even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that Article 25 is applicable, then the said Article provides that "if the words are not actionable in themselves". In the present case the words attributed to the plaintiff in the notice served by the defendant as well as the words uttered before the servants and children and other household people are actionable and the plaintiff took action on those words which culminated in the defendant's conviction and sentence by the Federal Shariat Court, as stated above. As such, the cause of action which accrued to the plaintiff on the date of divorce as the same was based on accusations, continued till the day when the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court was announced. The present suit was filed within a month of the passing of the said judgment and, therefore, even if the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, the present suit has been filed within a period of one year, as provided under Article 25 and is within time. Law of Qazf is a special law and is absolutely different from the general law of the land and since no limitation period has been provided specifically, Article 120 of the Limitation Act will apply which clearly contemplates period of limitation for filing of suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. I have perused the sections mentioned by the learned counsel and have gone through the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. ????????? " Before I dwell any further on the Law of Qazf, I must mention here that in my opinion, the Federal Shariat Court, by convicting and sentencing the defendant/applicant as above, has confirmed that all the allegations levelled against the. plaintiff were false, which gave rise to the right to sue in favour of the plaintiff on account of Qazf. To understand this new law, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant provisions, which read as under: "

3. Qazf.‑‑Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by sign or by visible representation, makes or publishes an imputation of Zina concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation, or hurt the feelings, of such person, is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to commit qazf. Explanation 1??????????????? Not relevant. Explanation 2 ?????????????? Not relevant. First Exception (Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published). It is not to impute zina to any person if the imputation be true and made or published for the public good..." A bare reading of the above‑quoted relevant provisions of the said Ordinance would reveal that: (i) Unlike the general terms `libel' and 'slander', which are general in terms and wide in scope, the term 'Qazf only relates to false imputation of Zina. (ii)??????? To proceed against the Qazf (the person who levels the charges of Zina against any other person), it is imperative that the allegation of Qazf is proved to be false and only then the Makhzoof (the person accused of Zina) can proceed against the Oazf. In view of the above, the date from ,which the period of limitation would start running would be the date on which the allegation of Zina was proved baseless and not the date on which the imputation of Zina was made as on such date it was yet to be proved whether such allegations were right. In the present case, the allegations of Jina were made at the time of divorce and later through the Legal Notice dated 27‑12‑1987 and then during the course of proceedings in Guardians and Words case dated 31‑5‑1988. On the basis of these very allegations, Criminal Complaint No. 639/1990 was filed and in consequence of the order passed on the criminal complaint, Criminal Appeal No. 14‑K of 1992 was filed. As such, the cause of action continued to the plaintiff till the date when the Federal Shariat Court announced its judgment, which finally settled the matter between the parties, proving all the allegations against the plaintiff to be false, giving ground to the plaintiff to take action under the provisions of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. Thus, in my opinion, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff for claiming damages on account of Qazf on the date on which the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court in Cr. Appeal No. 14‑K of 1992 was announced i.e. 28‑7‑1992. Now the next question for determination is whether Articles 24 and 25, or Article 120 of the Limitation Act would apply in the present case. As stated above, Articles 24 and 25 of the said Act relate to Libel and Slander, respectively. Admittedly, this suit was filed for recovery of damages on account of Qazf. The tems 'Qazf bears special meaning and covers the false accusation of 'Zina', whereas the terms 'Libel, and `Slander' are general in terms and wide in scope of application. I find myself in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and hold that since there is no special article for the cases of Qazf, residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act would be applicable in the present case and the period of limitation for the purposes of filing of the suit would be the date of judgment of the Federal Shariat Court i.e. 28‑7‑1992. Since the suit was filed on 29‑8‑1992, the same is held to be well within time. In view of above, CMA 3818/93 is dismissed. Since issues Nos. 1 and 2 deal with the maintainability and limitation of this suit, which have been disposed of by this order, the same may be deleted from the issues adopted by the Court. Office is directed to fix the case for further proceedings. AA./R‑288/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed