2013 PLP 2284 (CLD)

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

This Civil Revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-6-2011 passed by learned Civil Judge Nankana Sahib whereby petitioner's suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs.25,000 against Muhammad Shakil respondent has been dismissed. It further assails the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge Nankana Sahib whereby petitioner's appeal was also dismissed.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the learned courts below misconceived while rendering the impugned judgments and decrees considering it a case of malicious prosecution instead of defamation; that the impugned judgments and decree are against law and facts, based on misreading and non-reading of evidence causing serious miscarriage of justice and liable to set aside.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Succinctly facts leading to this Civil Revision are that petitioner lodged a suit for recovery of Rs.25,000 as damages for defamation, loss of reputation, mental and physical torture allegedly caused by the respondent by filing an application before District Police Officer Nankana Sahib on 7-3-2009 attributing false implication of theft of his cattles against the petitioner and imputing derogatory statements against the petitioner in the locality, brotherhood and relatives of the petitioner. Respondent was proceeded against ex parte evidence. Petitioner produced Alamdar Hussain ASI Incharge Complaint Office DPO Nankana Sahib. He brought original record of application No.154-RC dated 7-3-2009 and produced a copy thereof (Exh.P-1) and report thereupon (Exh.P-2). Petitioner himself appeared in the witness box as P.W.2 and reiterated his assertions as set-forth in the plaint. He also produced Mehboob Ali (P.W.3) who corroborated the petitioner.

5. It is settled principle of law that defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person's reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. Defamation ordinarily takes the form of two separate torts i.e. libel and slander. There is no cavil to the proposition that libel is actionable per se and injury to reputation will be presumed. However, whether the case is one of libel or slander the following elements must be proved by the claimant:-- (a) The imputation must be defamatory; (b) It must identify or refer to the claimant; (c) It must be published/communicated to at least one person other than the claimant.

6. In the instant case documentary evidence produced by the petitioner fails to contain any defamatory imputation. Exh.P-1 and Exh.P-2 do not reveal that respondent had levelled any allegation of theft of cattles against the petitioner' therefore the contents of the petition (Exh.P-1) do not fall within the ambit of libel. As regards the other part of the petitioner's plea that respondent has been giving defamatory, statement against him in the locality before the other members of the society, suffice to say that Mehboob Ali (P.W.3) appearing in the witness box has categorically stated that petitioner bears a good reputation and commands the honour and respect in the area. He has not stated that the alleged imputation of the respondent had lowered the respect or reputation of the petitioner in his estimation or in the estimation of right thinking members of the society in general or made him shun to avoid the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to establish the allegation against the respondent for causing defamatory imputation amounting to libel or slander to claim any damages.

7. I do not find any misreading or non-reading of evidence, material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned courts below.

8. For the above reason this Civil Revision having no merit is dismissed in limine. AG/F-17/L Revision dismissed.