2013 PLP 1724 (CLC)

MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.

Shah Jehan, appellant herein, through instant appeal, has questioned the judgment and decree dated 15-12-2012 of the learned Additional District Judge-XII, Peshawar, whereby she accepted the application of respondents Nos.8 and 9 for striking out their names from the panel of defendants and returned the plaint to the appellant for want of jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the present appeal are that appellant herein, filed a suit under Defamation Ordinance, 2002 against the respondents for the recovery of Rs.4,00,000,00/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution and tortuous acts. During the pendency of the suit, one of the defendants, namely, Qaiser Ali Kiyani died and his L.Rs. were impleaded in the panel of the defendants, who while appearing before the Court resisted the suit by filing an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. and striking out their names from the panel of defendants, which application was accepted and the suit was returned to the appellant for want of jurisdiction. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. The appellant has brought suit for damages under Defamation Ordinance, 2002. In order to appreciate the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, the relevant provisions are reproduced for convenience:

"

4. Defamation actionable.

The publication of defamatory matter is an actionable wrong without proof of special damage to the person defamed and where defamation is proved, damage shall be presumed.

8. Notice of action.

No action lies unless the plaintiff has, within two months after the publication of the defamatory matter has come to his notice or knowledge, given to the defendant, fourteen days notice in writing of his intention to bring an action, specifying the defamatory matter complained of.

9. Remedies.

Where defamation shall be proved to have occurred, the court may pass order directing the defendant to tender an apology, if acceptable to the plaintiff, and publish the same in similar manner and with the same prominence as the defamatory statement made any pay reasonable compensatory damages as general damages with a minimum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) or shall undergo three months imprisonment and in addition thereto, any special damage incurred that is proved by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of the Court.

11. Ordinance not to prejudice action for criminal defamation.

Nothing in this Ordinance shall prejudice any action of criminal libel or slander under any law for the time being in force." From the above provisions contained in Defamation Ordinance, 2002 it is very much clear that this special law was promulgated in order to cope with the defamatory statement, articles published/ circulated in electronic and print media and only the defamation accruing out of said publication or circulation either in written or visual form which injures the reputation of a person are actionable under this special law, ibid.

4. The appellant has instituted the suit for general damages for malicious prosecution and tortuous acts allegedly caused by the defendants/respondents, which obviously could be filed under the general law of torts and for that purpose simple suit for damages could be filed in ordinary court of original jurisdiction and not to be filed in a special tribunal constituted under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Tribunal constituted under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, is well-reasoned and in accordance with law, which requires no interference. Under the circumstances, the rights of the present appellant are well protected by the learned lower court, with the direction to approach the appropriate forum, thus this appeal is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. AG/359/P Appeal dismissed.