Defamatory suit

2010 CLD 1175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.3, 4, 5 & 9-Defamatory suit

Plaintiff claimed Rs.20,00,000 as damages alleging that the defendant had published false news items in the newspaper damaging his reputation and professional performance-Trial Court decreed the suit awarding Rs.500,000 as damages directing the defendant to publish apology for and contradiction of the false news within fifteen days, failing which plaint would be entitled to remaining Rs.15,00,000 of the amount claimed-Defendant contended that publication of the apology had dissolved his liability to pay Rs.500,000 as damages awarded by the Trial Court-Validity-Defendant's contention that the publication of apology had entitled him to the defence provided by S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was not maintainable because the defendant published apology only after the judgment had been passed by the Trial Court, so the same could not be regarded as a proper apology offered to be tendered and published voluntarily

Defendant published apology to save him from payment of the hefty amount of Rs.1500,000 awarded as portion of damages

Apology tendered in pursuance of judgment of the court to avoid payment of alternative damages could not be termed a proper apology as envisaged in S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Plaintiffs case for damages was proved beyond shadow of doubt

Defendant could not produce any evidence to prove the veracity of allegations levelled against the plaintiff in the news items

Publication of news items constituted defamation, appeal therefore, was dismissed.

2010 PLD 413 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 4, S & 9Defamatory suit

Plaintiff claimed Rs.20,00,000 as damages alleging that the defendant had published false news item in the newspaper damaging his reputation and professional performance

Trial Court decreed the suit awarding Rs.500,000 as damages directing the defendant to publish apology for and contradiction of the false news within fifteen days, failing which plaintiff would be entitled to remaining Rs. 15,00,000 of the amount claimed

Defendant contended that publication of the apology had dissolved his liability to pay Rs.500,000 as damages awarded by the Trial Court

Validity

Defendant's contention that the publication of apology had entitled him to the defence provided by S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was not maintainable because the defendant published apology only after the judgment had been passed by the Trial Court, so the same could not be regarded as a proper apology offered to be tendered. and published voluntarily

Defendant published apology to save him from payment of the hefty amount of Rs. 15,00,000 awarded as portion of damages

Apology tendered in pursuance of judgment of the court to avoid payment of alternative damages could not be termed a proper apology as envisaged in S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002

Plaintiff's case for damages was proved beyond shadow of doubt

Defendant could not produce any evidence to prove the veracity of allegations levelled against the plaintiff in the news items

Publication of news items constituted defamation, appeal therefore, was dismissed.