2007 PLP 239 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Applicant Versus PAK-GULF LEASING COMPANY LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 239 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Applicant Versus PAK-GULF LEASING COMPANY LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 239 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 239 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 239 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Applicant Versus PAK-GULF LEASING COMPANY LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Mansoor Qureshi for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 & O.VII, R.10
Suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation
Return of plaint by Additional District Judge on the ground that issue pertained to jurisdiction of Banking Court
Petitioner had contended that District Judge had exclusive jurisdiction under S.13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and that plaint had wrongly been returned
Petitioner was a guarantor in a finance granted to borrower and being a guarantor, leasing company was entitled to issue a notice for recovery and demand and that notice could not be construed to have caused defamation
Order returning plaint passed by Additional District Judge, seemed to be proper.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.
Through this revision order of the learned Vth Additional District Judge has been challenged. The contention between the parties is that the applicant filed a suit for recovery of damages of Rs.5 million on account of defamation under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, but the plaint has been returned by the learned Vth Additional District Judge by its order dated 7-1-2006 on the ground that since the issue pertains to the jurisdiction of Banking Court, therefore, that Court has no jurisdiction. Mr. Arshad Jamal Siddique learned counsel for the applicant submits that the District Judge has exclusive jurisdiction under section 13 of the Defamation Ordinance and that the plaint has wrongly been returned, the learned Court would have decided the suit on merits. On the other hand Mr. Amir Mansoor Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the plaint has rightly been returned as the issue actually pertains to the Banking Court as the applicant was a guarantor in a finance granted to a borrower i.e. respondent No.2 and a suit in this respect bearing No.24 of 2005 was filed in the Banking Court against applicant and respondent No.2, which suit has been decreed and execution is in process. The applicant instead of contesting the banking suit has filed this case to detour the situation. He submit that the Banking Court has already held that the applicant is a guarantor and was liable along with the respondent No.2, therefore, the finding of a competent Court can only be challenged before Appellate Court and no other forum can be used as there will be multiplicity of the proceedings and two different Courts cannot be permitted to take up similar issue for decision. The contentions raised by Mr. Amir Mansoor Qureshi seems to be correct as the fate of the applicant as to whether he is guarantor or not has already been decided by the Banking Court and if he was a guarantor then naturally respondent No.1 was entitled to issue a notice for recovery and demand and that notice cannot be construed to have caused defamation. In the circumstances the order of the learned Vth Additional District Judge seems to be proper, hence this revision has no force and is dismissed. H.B.T./M-164/K Revision dismissed.