2010 PLP 2595 (YLR)
ANSAR ABBASI — Appellant Versus Mst. FOUZIA WAHAB — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2595 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany, C J and Tufail H. Ebrahim, J |
| Parties | ANSAR ABBASI — Appellant Versus Mst. FOUZIA WAHAB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2595 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 2595 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, C J and Tufail H. Ebrahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2595 (YLR) (ANSAR ABBASI — Appellant Versus Mst. FOUZIA WAHAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jam Asif Mehmood and Wasif Riaz for Appellant.
- Abid S. Zuberi and Umer Lakhani for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5(b)
Journalist was not restrained from practising his profession as a responsible journalist provided he remained within the parameters of S.5(b), Defamation Ordinance, 2002.
Judgment & Decree
Allowed.
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that the restraining order, dated 8-6-2010 in Civil Suit No. 986/2010 filed by the respondent against the appellant is perhaps preventing him (appellant) from doing his job as a responsible Journalist, According to learned counsel, the interpretation of said restraining order is that now he cannot author any news article or for that matter go on Television to air his views, which is contrary to section 5(b) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, which provides that in defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that the matter commented on is fair and in the public interest and is an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact and was published in good faith. To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent says that the impugned order is person specific i.e. appellant is restrained from making any statement/publication against the plaintiff, veracity whereof, he is unable to corroborate and has nothing to do with the appellant's profession in general as a responsible Journalist. We have heard both the learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would dispose of this appeal by directing' that the appellant is not restrained from practising his profession as a responsible Journalist provided he remains within the parameters of section 5(b) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, as referred to above. It is clarified that we have not at all touched the interim order given in Civil Suit No.986/2010 dated 8-6-2010. M.A.K./A-57/K Order accordingly.