Suit for damages

Brief facts of the matter were that the appellant instituted a civil suit for recovery of damages against the respondent (appellant's employer), alleging unlawful termination of service and consequential harm; the Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit, against which the present 'regular first appeal' was filed before the High Court

Held: Appellant himself admitted that the company never published any advertisement nor issued any letter to dealers or third parties containing adverse or defamatory remarks about him

Additionally, he admitted that the respondents/defendants did not express any negative or damaging comments concerning his character or conduct

Respondents/defendants could not be held personally liable for any damages allegedly arising from their actions

If any liability were to arise, it could be the company that could potentially be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees or agents, provided that such damages were properly pleaded and substantiated by the appellant/plaintiff

In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff had no valid cause of action against the individual respondents

The appellant failed to bring a claim against the company, therefore, no claim for damages could be sustained against the respondents in their personal capacities

In view of the foregoing and in the absence of any cogent or corroborative evidence to demonstrate actual loss of reputation or mental suffering, the claim for such damages remained unproven and was therefore legally untenable

Present appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

A suit for damages for malicious prosecution was filed by the respondent against the petitioner which emanated from FIR No.133/2018 lodged under Ss.420/448/506-B, P.P.C.

Suit was decreed for Rs.12 million

Appeal against the decision of Trial Court was dismissed

The legal point for determination in the whole proceedings was as to "whether the test for malicious prosecution was correctly applied by the courts below"

Held: The Supreme Court has time and again disparaged the tendency of frivolous litigation

Lodging of false FIRs has unfortunately become a norm which can only be curbed by awarding damages in favour of the individual who was wronged

Admittedly an FIR No. 133/2018 was initiated by the appellant under Ss.420/448/506-B, P.P.C.

It was also admitted that the prosecution ended in the favour of respondent

It was evident from perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court in the criminal case that the Trial Court specifically adjudicated that it was a "case of no evidence" and no evidence had been given by the appellant to connect the respondent with the alleged offence

It was also evident from the examination and perusal of the record that the appellant effected appearance in the suit, filed written statement and also filed his affidavit-in-evidence, however, the appellant despite being given repeated chances failed to appear for his deposition and only restricted himself to the cross-examination of the respondent

The argument of the counsel that the appellant was condemned unheard, was unwarranted for the reason that the said appellant participated in the proceedings and subsequently even cross-examined the respondent

The examination in chief filed by the appellant, in the absence of him being subjected to the test of cross-examination, was rightly not considered by the Trial Court and therefore not taken into adjudication

No substantial error or defect could be pointed out in the impugned judgment

The appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents published a false speech/report in a Daily Newspaper, which caused harm to the reputation, dignity, honor and business of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs claimed damages and Trial Court decreed the suit

Appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment of Trial Court

Validity

Record showed that the witnesses were not eye-witnesses of the press conference, and their statements being hearsay were not admissible in evidence

For the purpose of damages party was bound to prove the quantum of damages sustained to it by producing trustworthy evidence

Decree for damages could not be granted without proofs

Plaintiff did not take benefit from the testimonies of other side's witnesses

Plaintiff neither produced any person who was present at the time of press conference nor exhibited the copies of newspaper

So far as the loss of business was concerned, none of the witness uttered a single word that as to what was the business of the plaintiff and how he sustained loss and during which period

Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he suffered loss in the business

For special damage the plaintiff was duty bound to prove each item of loss on the strength of evidence

For establishing alleged defamation, the person claiming to have been injured must establish the case that his reputation has been diminished due to action of defendant

Mere assertion in the plaint that on account of act of defendants plaintiff suffered loss could not be sufficient to grant damages

Petitioner had failed to establish any illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, warranting interference

Petition being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent-employee was dismissed from service on 3.10.1991 and his review petition dated 19.4.1992 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 5.7.1992

Respondent filed his suit for on 12.6.1993, after almost one year

Cause of action to file a suit for compensation/damages arose to the Respondent on 5.7.1992 and was therefore within the limitation of one year provided in Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for claiming compensation for any other injury to the person

Appeal was dismissed.

In the present case when the Respondent-employee was dismissed from service, it would have been difficult for him to be employed again owing to the fact that a dismissal from service on his record would have had the effect of either barring him from further employment or making it considerably more difficult for him to be employed again

Such blot on his service permanently marked the Respondent for the rest of his life and was only washed away when the Respondent passed away

Had the Appellant-bank treated the Respondent in a just and fair manner and conducted a fair, open and impartial inquiry giving him the opportunity to defend himself, the financial and reputational aspect of a claim in tort would have been non-existent or too remote

Dismissal from service is clearly a stigma and financial and reputational loss apart from mental torture, agony and distress are logical consequences

In the present case, owing to denial of the right to defend himself without just cause leads towards a conclusion of wrongful dismissal and financial as well as economic loss and therefore could naturally be considered to arise out of the wrongful dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

Since the Respondent had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the Appellant cannot be granted the premium of not being made to compensate the Respondent especially when the Appellant failed to prove that the damages the Respondent sought were too remote or did not naturally arise out of the breach of contract

Once the Respondent had proved that he had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the onus shifted on the Appellant to prove that the damages claimed by the Respondent were either too remote or did not arise out of the breach of contract

In the absence of anything to the contrary, the Respondent was entitled to such damages that in the opinion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arose directly out of the breach of contract as well as all damages claimed for wrongful dismissal from service

Appeal was dismissed.

At no point did the Appellant-bank during cross-examination of the Respondent-employee ever try to rebut or deny the allegations made by him against the involvement of the General Management in the losses that had led to the initial preliminary inquiry and subsequent dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

In fact, the Appellant had agreed that it had allowed the General Manager, under whose instructions and supervision the Respondent worked, to resign as opposed to being dismissed from service

When the Respondent responded to the show-cause notice issued to him by the Appellant, he demanded a "full and complete" hearing before the Enquiry Committee

However, the Enquiry Committee constituted for probing the allegations against the Respondent dispensed with such requirement (under Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981) without giving any reason and proceeded to dismiss the services of the Respondent

Principle of audi alteram partem i.e. being granted a hearing before an adverse order is passed applies to employees who are to be dismissed from service since dismissal entails reputational as well as financial loss

Enquiry Committee by dispensing with the requirements of Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 infringed the right of the Respondent to present oral evidence and cross-examine anyone who might have testified against him

Respondent was denied a fundamentally important right of an opportunity to defend himself

Furthermore, Respondent was discriminated against as admittedly the General Manager was the person who the Respondent reported to; under whose instructions the Respondent acted; and who admittedly appeared to be reason the branch of the Appellant faced colossal financial loss

Surprisingly, no civil proceedings were initiated by the Appellant against the General Manager and he was ultimately asked to resign from service whereas the Respondent was dismissed from service

Appellant had breached the Respondent's employment contract

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellant attended the school for hardly a year and upon his expulsion sought issuance of a character certificate, which was issued stating that the appellant was caught cheating in an examination, cheating material was recovered from him, he lost his temper and abused and tore the exam paper, whereafter his name was stuck off from the school's record

Somehow the appellant managed to procure a clean character certificate

But, still he was not satisfied, and after almost two decades he sued for damages

Said suit was hopelessly time-barred, yet it was entertained

High Court had put a stop to the abuse of the process of the court, but the appellant remained incorrigible

Appellant initiated litigation, including present appeal, which was entirely frivolous

Appellant was unnecessarily accommodated and the school and its staff were involved in endless litigation

Court time and public resources were squandered

Present appeal was dismissed with costs throughout and by imposing costs of fifteen thousand rupees, which the appellant was directed to pay to the school.

[Per Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. (Majority view): Proceedings of the case were prolonged by the petitioner (defendant) at every stage of the case in the Trial Court to delay the decision of the case

During proceedings for delivering and answering the interrogatories by the parties under Order XI, C.P.C., the petitioner showed the same delaying tactics by which he had been hindering the progress of the suit earlier

Trial Court had provided the petitioner with more than sufficient opportunities to submit his answers to the interrogatories of the respondent, before taking the penal action under Rule 21 of Order XI, C.P.C.

Conduct of the petitioner had remained willfully contumacious and disobedient throughout the proceedings of the case in the Trial Court

Trial Court had not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by dismissing the objections (application) of the petitioner for rejection of the interrogatories of the respondent and directing him to submit the answers to those interrogatories and subsequently by striking out the right of defence of the petitioner due to non-submission of the answers to the said interrogatories]

[Per Ayesha A. Malik, J. (Minority view): In the present case the order of the Trial Court whereby the right of the petitioner's defence was struck out, the facts of the case did not establish that the petitioner committed willful default or intentionally and deliberately disobeyed an order of the Court

Effect of striking out the defence was that it deprived the party of its ability to defend itself in the case which was a serious matter

In the present case the Court had other alternatives, at its disposal, to regulate the pace of the proceedings as well as the conduct of the petitioner, one of which was to impose costs which would not only serve as a form of deterrence but would also lay the foundation for expeditious justice

Trial Court proceeded in a mechanical manner with the case, and granted numerous adjournments without so much as imposing cost so as to discourage the same

Order by which the right of defence of the petitioner was struck out, did not state that it was based on the history of the case or the overall conduct of the petitioner in the case

Petitioner's recent public shooting and injury at a political rally justified the grant of an adjournment for a reasonable time under the circumstances

Right to defence could not be struck out without considering all relevant factors

Impugned order of the Trial Court, whereby right of defence of petitioner was struck out, was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file answers to the interrogatories and thereafter to proceed with the case in accordance with law]

In the present case when the Respondent-employee was dismissed from service, it would have been difficult for him to be employed again owing to the fact that a dismissal from service on his record would have had the effect of either barring him from further employment or making it considerably more difficult for him to be employed again

Such blot on his service permanently marked the Respondent for the rest of his life and was only washed away when the Respondent passed away

Had the Appellant-bank treated the Respondent in a just and fair manner and conducted a fair, open and impartial inquiry giving him the opportunity to defend himself, the financial and reputational aspect of a claim in tort would have been non-existent or too remote

Dismissal from service is clearly a stigma and financial and reputational loss apart from mental torture, agony and distress are logical consequences

In the present case, owing to denial of the right to defend himself without just cause leads towards a conclusion of wrongful dismissal and financial as well as economic loss and therefore could naturally be considered to arise out of the wrongful dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

Since the Respondent had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the Appellant cannot be granted the premium of not being made to compensate the Respondent especially when the Appellant failed to prove that the damages the Respondent sought were too remote or did not naturally arise out of the breach of contract

Once the Respondent had proved that he had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the onus shifted on the Appellant to prove that the damages claimed by the Respondent were either too remote or did not arise out of the breach of contract

In the absence of anything to the contrary, the Respondent was entitled to such damages that in the opinion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arose directly out of the breach of contract as well as all damages claimed for wrongful dismissal from service

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondent-employee was dismissed from service on 3.10.1991 and his review petition dated 19.4.1992 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 5.7.1992

Respondent filed his suit for on 12.6.1993, after almost one year

Cause of action to file a suit for compensation/damages arose to the Respondent on 5.7.1992 and was therefore within the limitation of one year provided in Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for claiming compensation for any other injury to the person

Appeal was dismissed.

At no point did the Appellant-bank during cross-examination of the Respondent-employee ever try to rebut or deny the allegations made by him against the involvement of the General Management in the losses that had led to the initial preliminary inquiry and subsequent dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

In fact, the Appellant had agreed that it had allowed the General Manager, under whose instructions and supervision the Respondent worked, to resign as opposed to being dismissed from service

When the Respondent responded to the show-cause notice issued to him by the Appellant, he demanded a "full and complete" hearing before the Enquiry Committee

However, the Enquiry Committee constituted for probing the allegations against the Respondent dispensed with such requirement (under Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981) without giving any reason and proceeded to dismiss the services of the Respondent

Principle of audi alteram partem i.e. being granted a hearing before an adverse order is passed applies to employees who are to be dismissed from service since dismissal entails reputational as well as financial loss

Enquiry Committee by dispensing with the requirements of Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 infringed the right of the Respondent to present oral evidence and cross-examine anyone who might have testified against him

Respondent was denied a fundamentally important right of an opportunity to defend himself

Furthermore, Respondent was discriminated against as admittedly the General Manager was the person who the Respondent reported to; under whose instructions the Respondent acted; and who admittedly appeared to be reason the branch of the Appellant faced colossal financial loss

Surprisingly, no civil proceedings were initiated by the Appellant against the General Manager and he was ultimately asked to resign from service whereas the Respondent was dismissed from service

Appellant had breached the Respondent's employment contract

Appeal was dismissed.

Prosecution had ended in favour of appellant but his liberty was interfered with as he was arrested in the criminal case

However, the remaining three ingredients - the respondent having acted without reasonable and probable cause; respondent being actuated by malice and the appellant having suffered damage-were not proved

Ingredients of malicious prosecution were not proved by the appellant

Appeal was dismissed.

Plaintiff filed suit for damages with the claim that he was returning from work on his motorcycle when all of a sudden a heavy iron pole erected on the roadside by the defendants suddenly collapsed and fell on his head

Validity

Plaintiff had permanently lost vision in his left eye, which is a significant and irreversible disability

Plaintiff's disability and dependency on others due to impaired vision hindered his mobility, especially at night, and he incurred additional expenses for transportation as he could not drive

Plaintiff suffered traumatic injuries resulting in loss of amenities, enormous pain, mental anguish and disability, affecting his social life, education and self-esteem

Plaintiff had been dependent on others and would continue to rely on them due to partial vision loss, experiencing sleep disturbances, vertigo, and intense headaches caused by head injuries

Plaintiff had undergone multiple operations, treatments, grafting, and injections, causing extreme pain, mental anguish and a bleak outlook on life due to the permanent and severe injuries sustained, with no prospects of healing or restoration

Plaintiff's life expectancy had been shortened due to the severity of the injuries, with minimal improvement over the past year, and the sympathetic damage had affected the second eye

Plaintiff faced humiliation due to the loss of vision and altered appearance, making him a target of distress and ridicule

Plaintiff received treatment at different hospitals, undergoing surgeries, check-ups, and various medical tests

Additional medical expenses were anticipated in the future, including major operations, necessitating the purchase of medical equipment

Plaintiff had been advised to seek treatment abroad but was unable to do so due to financial constraints, resulting in current and projected medical expenses amounting to approximately Rs. 1 million

At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was 30 years old, with a projected life expectancy of 70 years; he had a promising career in software development, but due to the loss of vision and other injuries, his ability to work efficiently and effectively had been significantly impaired; his earning potential had been diminished, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 50,000 per month

This had also hindered his professional growth, advancement, and future earning prospects, causing substantial pecuniary loss and dimming his chances of career progression

Evidence brought on record had remained unchallenged and uncontroverted

Defendants were liable to compensate the plaintiff

Suit was decreed as prayed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed a petition against his dismissal, which was dismissed because the plaintiff's remedy was available before Service Tribunal and jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution

Plaintiff filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed

Petitions for leave to appeal before Supreme Court were filed but the leave was refused

Plaintiff again after exhausting the remedy upto the Supreme Court filed a constitutional petition before the High Court, which too was dismissed

Dismissal of petition was then followed yet again by a suit before the Civil Court wherein the plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Plaintiff preferred appeal, which met the same fate

Plaintiff did not lose hope and filed second appeal, however, that too was dismissed

Matter was taken to the Supreme Court wherein after arguing the matter at length, permission was granted to withdraw the petition, however, it was for the purpose of availing appropriate remedy

Appropriate remedy as discovered by the plaintiff was in the suit for recovery of damages

Cause of action to claim damages had ceased when the plaintiff's dismissal was held lawful and confirmed

Damages could only follow on the count of unlawful dismissal in terms of pleadings of plaintiff

High Court rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. on the basis of the averments raised in the plaint itself.

Petitioner/defendant contended that name of such witness was not mentioned in the list and no good cause for omission of name was shown

Phrases "good cause" and "reasons to be recorded"

Scope

Validity

Words "or produced" in between the words "call" and "witnesses" were inserted in sub-Rule (2) of R.1 of O.XVI, C.P.C., through the Lahore High Court Amendment dated 02/10/2001

Court could allow production/summoning of the witnesses at a belated stage upon showing of a "good cause" and for "reasons to be recorded"

Application in question sought to produce witness/Deputy Manager Finance to depose and produce record pertaining to the payments made by the respondent and consequential loss/damages suffered due to non-performance of the defendants, and that such record was necessary for a just/fair decision of the case

No cause, whatsoever, was shown by the respondent for its omission to include name of such witness in the list of witnesses

Impugned order stated that application of the respondent was allowed "in the interest of justice" apparently for the reason that the respondent itself was producing the said witness voluntarily, which was an irrelevant consideration since the Lahore High Court Amendment introduced in the R.1(2) of O.XVI, C.P.C.

No findings were recorded on the importance of the witness in the trial, prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioners and inconvenience, if any, caused to the court

Permission to produce witness had been granted as a matter of routine without recording reasons showing judicious application of mind

Revision petition was accepted, impugned order was set-aside and Trial Court was directed to decide the application in question afresh.

Claim of the plaintiffs was that the defendants (appellants) had entered into a contract whereby they had assured to get them performed Hajj against the money, so obtained by the defendants but they failed to arrange Hajj visas

Defendants had never denied the claim of the plaintiffs rather had admitted the claim to such extent with further claim to have paid such amount to a company

Nothing was produced on record that such deposit was permissible as per contract between parties or was with consent of plaintiffs

In absence thereof, such plea could not help the defendants in escaping their liabilities to honour the contract as well as compensation for breaching the same within the meaning of Contract Act, 1872

Defendants had only applied for quota which was never granted to them yet they not only took amount from the people, including plaintiffs in name of 'getting such persons performed Hajj'

Performing Hajj is normally the greatest desire of a Muslim who, for his life, prays and gathers money for such purpose, therefore, when a person with complete satisfaction of performing Hajj is denied by the contractor (travel agency), the mental shock and agony is inevitable

Defendants being Directors of the company could not escape their liabilities towards the company

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellants assailed judgement and decree passed by trial court whereby the plaintiff's suit for recovery of damages was partially decreed

Facts of the case were that the appellants inspected the premises of a workshop of which the plaintiff was an incharge; that the authorities had found a large potential of 'larva' and on the complaint of the competent authority a criminal case was registered against him as a result of which he lost his job

Main contention of the authorities was that the suit was barred by mandatory provision of S.79 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that under S.8 of the West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings could have been filed against any person for anything which he had done in good faith or had intended to do under the Act or rules laid therein

Validity

No suit could have been filed against the Provincial Government (authorities) without impleading the province as a party

Section 8 of the West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 clearly provided that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings could be filed against any person for anything which was done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act

Suit, being not maintainable, was dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

Plaintiff sought recovery of damages from defendant hospital for issuing medical test report alleged to be with false results and plaintiff had to travel abroad from where he got another report with different results

Suit was decreed partially in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit

Validity

No evidence was available to show any professional negligence of carelessness in preparation of test result

Doctors abroad did not declare disputed report as false and evidence on record reflected that defendant hospital acted with extreme professionalism and second report on return of plaintiff to Pakistan corroborated the report of foreign hospital, which reflected due professionalism and care in testing and preparing reports by defendant hospital

As to foreign visit Witness of plaintiff, as to foreign visit of plaintiff deposed that he had been visiting abroad sometime alone and at others with his family

No assumption could be inferred that plaintiff had any panic attack or went abroad especially because of disputed test report

Claim of plaintiff as to financial losses or mental agony was declined by Trial Court which was not challenged in appeal or cross-objections and the same had attained finality

Findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court to the effect that plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation and that suit of plaintiff was liable to be dismissed, did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of record

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant assailed the dismissal of her suit wherein she had claimed damages in respect of false and frivolous suits filed by the respondents coupled with mental torture and tensions, etc

Validity

Appellant had claimed Rs.80 million as damages yet not produced any documentary proof or details of damages caused to her rather only produced documents in respect of pending litigation between the parties

Apart from other questions of fact the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant herself had not opted to appear before the trial court as witness to prove the contents of plaint

Only appellant could have personally deposed about the alleged damage caused to her reputation while the attorney could not depose about the personal feelings of the appellant

Trial Court while dismissing the suit for damages had rightly observed that the essential ingredients i.e. termination of proceedings in favour of plaintiff, initiation of proceedings without probable cause and causing damages to the appellant were missing

Appeal was dismissed.

Question of mental agony was required to be established through cogent and reliable evidence and mere feeling of resentment in one's mind was not sufficient to establish mental agony

For person claiming mental torture/agony or damage/injury, initial burden would lie upon such person to lead evidence on same

General damages for mental torture, agony, defamation and financial loss, were to be assessed following "rule of thumb" and said exercise fell in the discretionary jurisdiction of court, which had to decide same per facts and circumstances of each case.

Contention of plaintiffs, inter alia, was that such valuables were stolen/lost due to omission, commission, complicity and/or negligence of defendant Bank and they were accordingly entitled to decree for compensation to amount of valuation of lost items and for damages on account of trauma and mental agony

Validity

Bank owed a duty of protection and safety in respect of such lockers however, determination of questions as to whether same had been breached or not; whether any negligence could be attributed towards defendant Bank, and further whether locker-holder(s) suffered any loss due to missing contents of locker, would only be possible after discussion of the evidence led by the parties

In order to substantiate claim, plaintiffs had to firstly show that such valuables mentioned in plaint were in fact held in the locker

Plaintiffs had to prove by independent evidence regarding quantity, quality and value of the property claimed and in present case, no proof was presented to show that such valuables were kept in said locker and no expert witness had been produced to show that jewellery/valuables mentioned in the list provided in plaint were actually worth to amount claimed

Question of breach of duty on part of the defendant Bank would arise only after the plaintiffs successfully established their claim of missing valuables from subject locker, which was not done in the present case

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants assailed judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby their claim for grant of liquidated damages was disallowed, however, special damages were granted

Validity

Evidence which was reckoned and considered cogent for grant of relief of recovery of one chunk of amount, out of same evidence, could not be distinguished and discarded for liquidated damages emanating from the decreed claim

Appellants were held entitled for liquidated damages and general damages

Appeal was allowed.

Plaintiff sought recovery of damages on the plea that he was falsely involved in a criminal case which caused loss to his business as well to his reputation

Validity

Nature of damages claimed by plaintiff fell within the ambit of general damages and special damages and the same required to be established through cogent and reliable evidence

Mere feeling of resentment in one's own mind was not sufficient to establish general and special damages

To claim mental torture/agony or damage/injury, initial burden was upon plaintiff to lead evidence on such point

Determining general damages for mental torture, agony, defamation and financial losses, those were to be assessed following the 'rule of thumb'

Such exercise was within the discretionary jurisdiction of Court which had to decide in facts and circumstances of each case

High Court in exercise of powers to grant general damages under the rule of thumb, plaintiff was found entitled to grant of partial damages

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Issuance of wrong meter readings was not disputed by company hence they could not come with the plea that respondent had not suffered mental agony by acts of their officials

Proofs of suffering and agony could not be demanded in shape of written documents but may well be proved by circumstances

Respondent established continuity of wrong actions on part of appellants as well as his approaches for redressal

Company legally could not take an exception to prove bona fide of its actions

Burden was upon company and a failure in such regard would always burden it to bear consequences as failure thereof burdened them to compensate the aggrieved

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court as prima facie there appeared no illegality in judgment and decree of court below

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Every criminal prosecution which ended in the acquittal of accused would not per se entitle the accused to file a suit for damages/ compensation

Original proceedings must have been malicious and without cause

Action for malicious prosecution was available as a remedy to one who had been wrongly involved/implicated in a criminal or civil proceedings

Plaintiff was required to establish the connection between reasonable and probable cause and the malice

Mere fact that plaintiff was prosecuted and acquitted would not suffice for the purposes of an action for malicious prosecution so long as he also proved the absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice

Burden to prove malicious prosecution would be on the plaintiff

Defendant-complainant was inflicted injuries by the accused and he was examined by the medical officer who appeared before the Court in support of his statement

Initiation of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff was neither without any reason and probable cause nor based on any malice

Acquittal of accused on the basis of some earlier compromise and extending him benefit of doubt would not clothe him with a cause to bring a suit for damages

Courts below had failed to appreciate the law and facts of the present case

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit for damages and claimed that the defendants published and got published defamatory allegations (public notice) against him without verification of the facts

Validity

Public notice got issued by defendant prima facie had a reason of its publication i.e.the claim of land

Public notice was issued to put public onto notice about claims of the defendant and its intended action was to protect every inch of its property, hence to such extent public notice was within its object and purpose

Deliberate use of the name of plaintiff in public notice seemed to allow general public to have wrong impression about the plaintiff that he had illegally allotted its lands

Mere claim of bona fide or to have acted in the interest of defendant did not absolve the defendants from establishing bona fide

Public notice to the extent of mentioning the name of plaintiff was not in public interest rather was causeless resulting in damage to the reputation of plaintiff

Plaintiff, on establishing defamation, had only become entitled to compensation but quantum thereof was an entirely different thing which had got its own peculiar requirements/ingredients and mere claim of certain amount as a damages did not earn plaintiff a right to insist decree to such extent

Plaintiff had never attempted to differentiate damages with regard to mental torture, agony, defamation and financial loss but had claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 50 million

High Court, in absence of proof of mental shock and bifurcation of claimed damages, found it proper and justified to award an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/-(eighty lac) to the plaintiff

Suit was partially decreed.

Plaintiff filed suit for damages and claimed that the defendants published and got published defamatory allegations against him without verification of the facts

Validity

Publisher had published an unchanged piece of the press release, therefore, he could not be held responsible for any loss (defamation), particularly when no mala fide had been pleaded on the part of publisher

Press release was issued by an institution which had nothing to do with the defendant

Said institution was not made party nor the plaintiff at later stage had sought joining of it in the suit

Plaintiff had not impleaded the initiator of the news, hence, the claim of plaintiff against the publisher was not legally justified

Suit was dismissed against the said defendant.

Plaintiff raised the plea that registration of FIR was malicious in nature which not only tarnished her image but made her to suffer mental torture, agony and loss of reputation

Validity

Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on mind of a discreet and reasonable man

Malice and want or reasonable and probable cause had reference to state of defendant's mind at date of initiation of criminal proceedings

Plaintiff was involved in a false case whereas defendant chose not to proceed further in challenging order of Judicial Magistrate accepting report under S.173, Cr.P.C. as (cancelled) 'C-Class'

Plaintiff was not only humiliated but was subjected to malicious prosecution

Exercising powers to grant general damages under rule of thumb, damages were granted to extent of Rs. 200,000/- with 5% simple markup from date of decree till its realization

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Qualifying length of service for getting the second gratuity was condonable as only one and half month was short to make the employee entitled for the second gratuity

Claim of employee for gratuity to the extent of Rs. 57,500/- was justified

Employee was entitled for official car and driver along with 270 liters petrol per month right from the start of her employment

Claim of Rs.6,23,040/- for expenses incurred towards car, petrol, driver and maintenance from the period of August, 2002 to July, 2003 had been proved by the employee and she was entitled for the said amount

Department was guilty of breach of contractual obligation due to non-payment of admissible dues and not adhering to the terms of contract employment

Employee had been deprived of her service dues

Department had caused mental anguish and humiliation to the employee

Employee was entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in circumstances.

Plaintiff had resorted to jurisdiction of civil court by filing a regular suit under the law of torts and then at such belated stage he could not take a somersault by raising an objection on jurisdiction of Trial Court

Plaintiff produced one witness who did not support his claim

Present case was a case of no evidence and lower forums had no other option but to dismiss the suit for want of proof

Concurrent findings of facts rendered by two courts of competent jurisdiction were not open to any exception in absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence by lower forums

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" (a personal right of action dies with the person) was applicable in the present case

Present suit had abated on the death of plaintiff

Right to continue the present suit did not survive to the legal heirs of plaintiff

Suit was disposed of accordingly.

Burden to lead evidence and proof would lie on person claiming damages on account of mental agony or torture, or injury to reputation

Determination of general damages for mental torture / agony; defamation and financial loss were to be assessed following "rule of thumb" and such exercise fell in the discretionary jurisdiction of the court which had to decide the same according to facts and circumstances of each case.

Defendant assailed maintainability of plaint on grounds that it was not signed and verified by person duly authorized by the Board of Directors of the Company/Corporation as there was no resolution of Board available on record

Single Judge of High Court dismissed the objection

Validity

Veracity and authenticity of noting portion in file was not disputed and verification portion/clause of plaint itself mentioned name of the then Director (Technical) of plaintiff corporation meaning thereby that he was holding one of those offices which was within parameters of O.XXIX, R.1, C.P.C. for filing of suit

Absence of formal resolution could only be treated as technical omission and could not be regarded as incurable defect

Plaintiff corporation had filed a copy of Board resolution, ratifying act of person who filed suit on behalf of the Corporation

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the Single Judge in Chambers of High Court as objections raised by defendant were not sustainable in law

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendant filed list of witnesses on 06-08-2009, matter was fixed after two days on 08-08-2009 and then on 15-08-2009, his right of adducing evidence was closed and matter was fixed for 18-08-2009 and 03-09-2009; while closing statement of defendant suit was decreed under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.

Proper opportunity either producing or recording his statement was not afforded to defendant particularly in a case of damages of Rs. 5 billion and suit was decreed without discussing any evidence or giving any reason for the same

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and remanded case to Trial Court for decision afresh.

Plaintiffs filed suit for damages on the ground that they were involved in the criminal case with mala fide intention through supplementary statement

Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Act of defendant to involve the plaintiffs in the incident of dacoity was mala fide

Charge against the plaintiffs was wrong to the knowledge of defendant

Defendant had tried to influence the police to send the innocent plaintiffs to jail

Malice on the part of defendant had been proved

Plaintiffs were discharged after long investigations

Plaintiffs procured pre-arrest bail and they remained under threat of arrest in case of withdrawal of concession of bail by the court

Court had power to grant general damages to the plaintiffs in circumstances

Damages/compensation was granted to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/ to the plaintiffs

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Question before the High Court was whether a suit for damages on account of defamation resulting from alleged malicious prosecution was maintainable before the court of ultimate jurisdiction under S.9 of the C.P.C. or the same could only be adjudicated under S.13 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Held, that S.13 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 prescribed the remedy to enforce a right before the District Court, however, the same did not contain any repealing or ouster clause regarding jurisdiction of civil court to entertain a suit under the general law, that was S.9 of the C.P.C.

Remedy/right against defamation was already recognized and actionable under general law even prior to promulgation of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 hence without a clause ousting general jurisdiction of the civil court, any person aggrieved by an act of defamation could avail said remedy either by filing a suit before the civil court under S.9 of the C.P.C. or by making complaint under provisions of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 before District Court, and neither avenue was closed for such an aggrieved person

Impugned order was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Plaintiff sought recovery of damages on the plea that defendant Bank had lost original title document handed over at the time of getting finance facility

Validity

Loss of original title document even by Bank had brought depreciation in value of property, quantum whereof was subject to actual and genuine sale consideration

Lost/misplacing of original title document had happened while in the custody and control of defendant Bank and the same depreciated value of property of plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff was entitled for compensation to such and extent

After legally satisfactory completion of transaction between plaintiff (customer) and defendant (Bank) it was obligatory upon defendant Bank to have ensured return of all those things which were meant as 'Amanat' but defendant Bank failed in its obligation/ commitment

Defendant Bank legally could not take plea of innocent negligence in discharge of its bounden legal and moral obligation particularly when its (Bank's) whole business was required full and complete confidence and satisfaction of its customers

Before insisting plea of guilty of innocent negligence, defendant Bank was required to have established its bona fide for which defendant Bank proved nothing substantial

Defendant's witness admitted that loss of original title document was a cause of tension and anxiety, yet attitude of defendant Bank would speak for itself how they had dealt with approaches of plaintiff with regard to his lost original title documents

High Court keeping in view the status of defendant Bank and undisputed high price of property in question, awarded damages to plaintiff for mis-trust

Suit was decreed accordingly.

When damages claimed were of general nature then exercise of jurisdiction in determining and justifying the quantum in awarding the compensation would vest in the Trial Court

Quantum of damages to be awarded by the court was to be determined by reasonable assessment and guess work of a man of ordinary prudence subject to keeping in view the evidence produced by the parties and surrounding circumstances thereof

Suit for damages could only be decreed when averred in the plaint on each score separately and proved by evidence on each point

General, vague and scanty evidence was not to be relied upon

Damages suffered and quantity of amount claimed under each head had to be proved by cogent evidence

Trial Court had not taken into consideration each and every aspect of the evidence of the plaintiff while determining the quantum of damages

Claim in the nature of general damages had not been substantiated by cogent evidence led by the plaintiff

Impugned judgment was modified as to reduce the amount of damages to be paid to the plaintiff to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as plaintiff had failed to prove actual loss caused on account of the action in question

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Nothing was on record with regard to 'motive/reason' to purchase suit property in the name of defendant who was wife of plaintiff

Plaintiff had failed to establish stated ingredients of benami transaction to substantiate his plea

Original title document of suit property was with the defendant

Nothing was on record to show as to which act and omission of defendants resulted in causing damages to the plaintiff

Mere claim of "sustaining loss" was not sufficient unless it was established that any act or omission had resulted into causing injury to the plaintiff

Plaintiff was bound to prove particular act of defendant causing mental shock, pressure, physical torture and social disgrace which had not been proved in the present case

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of civil court with regard to suit for damages on the ground of loss of reputation and defamation was barred under S.13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002

District Court had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters

When special tribunal or court had been established to hear and decide the dispute then jurisdiction of courts constituted under general law should be ousted from exercising power of the nature

Word "shall" used in Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 had mandatory nature of provision with regard to exclusive jurisdiction to try cases of defamation.

Plaintiff could succeed to claim risk sale if there was an enforceable agreement between the parties and same had been breached by the authorities

No contract existed between the parties and claim of risk sale was not tenable

Nothing was on record that plaintiff took measures to mitigate its losses before arranging or manufacturing the requisite goods for authorities

Plaintiff should have addressed a notice or other type of communication to defendants with regard to the fact that it was about to make preparation or commence production of subject goods in order to supply them to the authorities

Intention of the parties could be determined either through covenants or by their conduct when such conduct was not objected by either of the contracting parties

Plaintiff had knowledge that a contracting obligation did not exist in the present case

Contracts awarded under tender inquiries should have definite time lines and prescribed set of rules regulating the award of tender

Such factors were missing in the present case

Plaintiff was not entitled for any damages

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Onus was on plaintiff to prove such fact by producing at least relevant pages of some well recognized international bulletin.

Parties were husband and wife inter se and after divorce, wife filed suit for recovery of money on account of compensation for allegations levelled in divorce deed made by her husband

Single Judge of High Court partially decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

Validity

No yardstick existed for determination of amount of damages, which was to be seen/examined and granted on case to case basis

No working, basis and quantification of the amount of the claim was furnished by plaintiff, which was always a guess work depending upon facts of each case

Amount of damages was rightly awarded by Single Judge of High Court in accordance with law and no interference was warranted in such regard

Division Bench of High Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Subsequently after a lapse of three years from retirement, plaintiff filed suit for damages against the Bank claiming that his pensionary benefits and other dues had not been properly calculated by the Bank

During the period of three years between his retirement and filing of suit, the plaintiff neither raised any objection, nor claimed any right or dues in relation to his past service/retirement

Besides plaintiff could not satisfy the court regarding his claim of miscalculation of his pensionary benefits and other dues, and also failed to point out any anomaly in the statement submitted in court by the Bank which contained details of all the dues paid to the plaintiff by the Bank

Three Courts below had rejected the plaintiff's claim (by accepting the Bank's application for rejection of plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.)

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly.

Application filed by defendant under O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. for summoning of officials of the hospital for production of record of the deceased patient

Civil Court while allowing such application, treated the same as an application for additional evidence, on the ground that record of deceased patient was helpful for just decision of the case

Validity

Order passed by Civil Court, which was discretionary in nature, was fully justified on the basis of the facts of the present case

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Trial Court rejected plaint on the ground that Defamation Ordinance, 2002 had no application to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas

Validity

Provincially Administered Tribal Areas were part of Pakistan and Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was made applicable to the whole of the country

Article 247 of the Constitution was non-operative when Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated

Separate Ordinance/Order or a Regulation by the President was not required for extension of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas

President had not promulgated Defamation Ordinance, 2002 in exercise of his ordinary powers under Art.89 of the Constitution rather it was in exercise of powers under Provisional Constitution Order, 1999

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not in accordance with provisions of Constitution which was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Suit filed by the plaintiff would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court who should decide the same in accordance with law

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Plaintiff had not been able to substantiate his cause through any tangible evidence on record; he had not only to prove that the prosecution ended in his favour but also that same was without reasonable and probable cause

Plaintiff had also to prove any enmity, grudge, ill will, hatred or malice with the defendant

Order on the basis of which plaintiff had brought present suit was for discharge of accused and not an order for acquittal

No damages could be claimed on the basis of discharge of accused

Trial Court had properly appraised the evidence brought on record

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff had not only to prove that the prosecution ended in his favour but also that same was without reasonable and probable cause

Plaintiff had also to prove any enmity, grudge, ill will, hatred or malice with the defendant.

Plaintiffs had not challenged the documentary evidence pertaining to their compromise with defendant-complainant during recording of evidence in the criminal case

Complete challan, submitted in the criminal case, indicated that parties had effected compromise; however, the said fact, as the alleged offences were non-compoundable, had not been mentioned in order of acquittal by the Trial Court

Prosecution witnesses had given deliberate concessions to plaintiffs, which had lead Trial Court to acquit them giving benefit of doubt

Present case did not fall within the ambit of malicious prosecution

Dismissal of the suits was just and legal

Appeals were dismissed in circumstances.

If suit of a plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court and during pendency of appeal in the case of death of either party, appeal abated

If decree had been passed in favour of plaintiff, in case of death of either party, appeal filed by the defendant would not abate and the legal representatives of the parties would step into the shoes of appellant/respondent

If suit had been partially decreed and both parties had preferred appeals, then in case of death of either party, the appeal for enhancement of damages would abate but appeal of defendant for setting aside the partial decree would not abate

Death would extinguish the liability in tort

Where appeal was filed by the tortfeasor and cross objections were filed by the plaintiff and appellant had died, appeal did not abate but cross objections would abate and if plaintiff had appealed, the same would have abated

Cross objection had been abated and same could not proceed and stand dismissed

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.