P L D 1955 Sind 320 (PLP)

This was a letter by one advocate to another containing a defence to an action which appeared impending over the contract. Such imputations are unfortunately made lightly in correspondence between advocates on behalf of their clients. Damages which could be recovered as a result of such publication being exceedingly light section 95 applied to the case. Ihsanul Haq, for applicant. Qadiruddin Ahmed, for respondent. Advocate General, for the Crown. ORAL ORDER CONSTANTINE, C. J.‑This matter arises from a dispute over a cotton contract between litigants, who have been des cribed in this case as business magnates of Karachi. The opponent's advocate sent a notice to the applicant's advocate regarding the contract, whereupon the applicant's advocate sent a reply to the opponent's advocate in which he said that the said contract was procured by fraud and misrepre sentation as well as bribery and. corruption. Thereupon the opponent started a criminal case under section 500 Pakistan Penal Code, against the applicant. The applicant was allowed by the Magistrate who tried the case to begin with to be absent, but when the case was transferred, the second Magistrate passed an order that summons should issue to both parties. The applicant remained absent, and the learned Magistrate, apparently without reference to the terms of the summons, considered that the applicant was at fault in not appearing personally. The summons, however, of which a copy is on the record was that he should appear in person or by pleader. We see no reason to think that this copy is not a correct copy despite the insinuation of Mr. Qadiruddin for the opponent. The applicant has applied in revision both to set aside the order for personal appearance and to quash the proceedings. We think that the proceedings should be quashed. This was a letter by one advocate to another containing a defence to an A action which appeared impending over the contract. We do not think that the advocate to whom the letter was addressed would think any the worse of his client because he received such an imputation. These imputations are unfortunately made lightly in correspondence between advocates on behalf8 of their clients, and while it is true we have no evidence ‑‑I Mr. Qadiruddin regarding the impression that was created on his mind when he received this letter, we think that he would almost automatically discount any such imputation. Further more, the damages which could be recovered as a result of such publication would be exceedingly light. We think, therefore, that section 95 applies in this case, and that the Magistrate's time should no longer be wasted. The proceedings are therefore quashed. Proceedings quashed.