P L D 2006 Lahore 557 (PLP)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

Shaukat Wahab (plaintiff/ respondent No.1) filed a suit against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3 seeking damages amounting to rupees twenty million on account of defamation. The suit was filed under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The grievance of the respondent/plaintiff arose from three news items Exh.P8 to Exh.P9) appearing in the Daily "Postmortem" Lahore.

2. The appellant/defendant is the Chief Executive of the aforesaid daily while respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were respectively the Chief Editor and correspondent of the said Daily when the aforesaid news items were published. According to the plaintiff, the news items were highly defamatory and false. The three defendants filed a joint written statement in which they took the plea that the news items were true and also that the defendants did not harbour any malice or enmity against the plaintiff. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the suit has been instituted without furnishing legal requirement, if so, its effect? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD (4) Whether in order to defame the plaintiff, the defendant flashed a false news story in their newspaper, which was baseless and intended to damage the reputation of the plaintiff and his department? OPP (4-A) Whether the defendant published the disputed news in their newspaper daily "Postmortem" on 29-12-2002 impartially and in the interest of public? OPD (5) Whether after the publication of the said news story the plaintiff lost his reputation? OPP (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 as prayed for? OPP (7) Relief. The plaintiff himself appeared as P.W. and produced Fayyaz-ul-Hassan as P.W.2. These witnesses deposed that the news items were without any factual basis and that the same were motivated by malice because the plaintiff had failed to accept the intervention made by Aman Ullah Khan (defendant/respondent No.3) on behalf of owners of certain medical stores challaned by the plaintiff. The defendants only examined Aman Ullah Khan as D.W.1 . At the outset we have examined the three news items which have been produced on record as Exh.P8, Exh.P9 and Exh.P

10. It will suffice for our purposes to reproduce the headlines of these news items:

3. It was not denied by the defendants that the aforesaid news items did appear in the daily "Postmortem" or that the same related to the plaintiff.

4. The contents of the news items are patently defamatory. Truth of the contents of the news items could of course have constituted a good defence. The plaintiff and his witness, namely, Fayyaz-ul-Hassan, deposed that the news items in question were false. The onus of proving that the news items were true, thus shifted on to the defendants. They have been unable to prove the correctness of the scandalous allegations made in Exh.P.8 to Exh. P.10. The solitary statement of one of the defendants as D. W.1 was certainly not enough on this score. Consequently, the defence set up in the written statement that the news report was true has not been established on record.

5. The other ground raised by the defendants in their written statement by way of defence was that the news items were published impartially, without malice and in the public interest. This defence has, been reflected in issue No.4.A reproduced above. There is no evidence to show that any investigation or probe was undertaken by the defendants to establish the veracity of the news items in question. Only if such probe had been made diligently and in good faith, could die defendants have shown that they had acted without malice and in the public interest. Having failed to do so they must be held liable for defaming the plaintiff. 6.? It is also clear from the testimony of the respondent/plaintiff that he had issued notices to the defendants under section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance. When respondent No.3 appeared as D.W.1, he denied having received notice but admitted that the acknowledgment due receipt bore his correct address. The other two defendants (the appellant and respondent No.2 herein) did not bother to take the witness stand. In the circumstances, the legal presumption that a registered letter was duly delivered to and received by the addressee remains unrebutted. In the circumstances, the prerequisite for filing a suit under the Defamation Ordinance stands proved.

7. The respondent/plaintiff has a graduate degree in Pharmacy. He is a Gazetted Officer of the Health Department and has been working as a Drug Inspector for some years. The news items (Exhs.P.8 to P.10) undeniably have affected his reputation . Issue No.5, therefore, was also rightly decided in the affirmative by the learned trial Court. 8.? While deciding issue No.6, the learned trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000 to the respondent/plaintiff by way of damages. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to advance any argument to show that the award was excessive. We have come to the conclusion, based on the contents of Exh.P.8 to Exh.P.10, that the same were highly defamatory, indeed scandalous. Furthermore, we are of the view that the news items in question are prime examples of irresponsible journalism. The quantum of damages awarded to the respondent/plaintiff could have been much higher had the respondent/plaintiff filed cross-objections. However, since no objections have been filed., we affirm the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.6.

9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout. M.B.A./M-284/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.