Suit for defamation

2026 PLD 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.13High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chapter XIV, Part A and Volume IV, Chapter I, Part GCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.19Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.6(2)Suit for defamationSuit entertained by Additional District Judge and not District JudgeLegalityWhether only District Judge can try the suit for defamation or same can be entrusted to Additional District JudgeAdditional District Judge empowered to exercise same judicial powers as of District JudgeTerritorial jurisdiction to institute defamation suitScopePlaintiff's option to sue where wrong occurred or where defendant resides/works for gain

Facts of the matter were that respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for defamation and damages of Rs. 50,000,000/- on the basis of alleged malicious prosecution under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 against the present petitioners/defendants

Petitioners/defendants filed written statement raising preliminary objections to the maintainability and jurisdiction

District court dismissed preliminary objections and held the suit maintainable, whereupon the petitioners filed present constitutional petition challenging that order on the questions of forum/jurisdiction

Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was as to "whether, in view of S.13 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, a suit under the Ordinance could be tried by an Additional District Judge as "District Court", and whether territorial jurisdiction lay at Lahore or Sahiwal in light of S.19 C.P.C. and the pleaded residence/cause of action?"

Held: The legislature deliberately replaced the term "District Judge" with "District Court" in order to address the increasing pressure of work upon the District Judge, who was simultaneously burdened with substantial administrative responsibilities

Difference between District Judge and Additional District Judge was only to the extent of administrative powers

When District Judge assigned certain functions to Additional District Judge, he exercised the same powers as of District Judge

No doubt District Judge was competent to try the cases instituted under the Ordinance 2002 but in the same way, when he assigned the cases to Additional District Judge, he also became fully competent to adjudicate upon the cases

As regards the question as to the territorial jurisdiction, it was purely the plaintiff's choice to institute a suit for compensation in the local limits of either Court (Lahore or Sahiwal), where the incident had taken place or where the defendant resided or carried on business

The purpose of said provision was to give the plaintiff flexibility to choose a convenient or appropriate forum and to prevent the defendant from evading liability simply by living or working in another jurisdiction

Respondent No.1 was residing at District Lahore and cause of action arose to him at Lahore, therefore, there was no impediment to institute the suit at District Lahore

No illegality, legal infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order was pointed out

Present constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2026 PLD 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Volume I, Chapter XIV, Part A & Volume IV, Chapter I, Part GDefamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002), S.13Suit for defamationSuit entertained by Additional District Judge and not District CourtLegalityWhether only District Judge can try the suit for defamation or same can be entrusted to Additional District JudgeAdditional District Judge empowered to exercise same judicial powers as of District JudgeScope

An appeal from a decree or order of a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising original jurisdiction lies to the High Court which clearly visualizes that the courts of District Judge and Additional District Judge are the same in terms of judicial business and for assailing the orders of both the courts (i.e. District Judge and Additional District Judge), the appropriate forum is the High Court

Moreover, once the functions of a District Judge have been assigned to an Additional Judge, the Additional Judge exercises, in the discharge of those functions, the same powers as the District Judge himself

It is only in respect of the functions actually assigned to him, however, that the Additional Judge enjoys these powers; and the functions so assigned, will, as a general rule, be purely judicial functions

While performing judicial functions, there is no difference between the courts of District Judge and Additional District Judge.

2023 MLD 525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 8 & 9Suit for defamationRecovery of damagesMagnitude of sufferingDeterminationStatutory notice, issuance ofProof

Appellants/defendants were aggrieved of judgment and decree passed against them by Trial Court for publishing derogatory words against respondent/plaintiff in their newspaper

Validity

No yardstick existed to gage such damages in monitory terms

While assessing damages on account of such inconvenience, Court was to apply a rule of thumb by exercising its inherent jurisdiction for granting general damages on a case to case basis, whereas, special damages were defined as the actual but not necessarily the result of injury complained of

While awarding special damages, it was to be kept in mind that the person claiming special damages had to prove each item of loss with reference to evidence brought on record

Such determination also included out of pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial and was generally capable of substantially exact calculation

Burden in such situation, like in all cases, was on the shoulder of respondent/plaintiff to prove magnitude of such suffering

Before initiating proceedings one had to give fourteen days' notice under S. 8 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, to the wrong doer within two months of publication of defamatory material or its knowledge

If there was no response by the other side, then suit for defamation could be filed under the law

Respondent/plaintiff sent notice to appellants / defendants but they did not receive it personally

Statement of postman was on record; copy of legal notice, and original receipts of registered post which proved that respondent/plaintiff had fulfilled requirement of S. 8 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and suit of respondent/plaintiff was right decreed in his favour by properly appreciating evidence and record

Appellants/defendants failed to point out any mis-reading and non-reading of evidence or record and judgment/decree was well reasoned and not open to any exception or interference by High Court

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2022 CLC 1397 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.VII, Rr.10(1) & 11Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002), Preamble"Return" and "rejection" of plaintDistinctionSuit for defamationHeld, that "Return" was different from rejection

Return of plaint did not connote that the plaint had mistakes or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to, it simply meant that the court was not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint was filed

Under O.VII, R.10(1) of C.P.C., a plaint was returned on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction with the concerned court

Defamation Ordinance, 2002 does not debar the plaintiff to file the suit for defamation before the Civil Court and the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 has not any overriding effect qua the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil court which had been provided by the legislature, therefore, the suit of the appellant was not returnable under O.VII, R.10, C.P.C.

2021 MLD 433 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.10 & 13Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11Suit for defamationRejection of plaintSuit filed by plaintiff was rejected by Trial CourtValidity

Trial Court was primarily required to consider averments contained in plaint, for determination under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

Memorandum of plaint filed in suit was devoid of any allegation with regard to any material published and distributed by defendant, which would lower reputation of plaintiff in society and in absence thereof a claim under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was not permissible

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 MLD 1207 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 5 & 15Suit for defamationActionable defamationScope

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the defendants published fake, fabricated news and levelled allegations with intention to humiliate him

Plaintiff had not annexed with the appeal the news items which were allegedly published in the newspaper

Perusal of alleged defamatory news items disclosed in plaint transpired that no defamatory words/news items were directly attributed to any person by name which was one of the necessary ingredients constituting defamation

Plaintiff had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in the Trial Court to prove/substantiate his claim

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 MLD 1993 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 8 & 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11Suit for defamationLimitationRejection of plaintObject of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.Defendant sought rejection of plaint on the plea of its being barred by lawValidityTrial Court was to go through the contents of plaint before proceeding with case

Provision of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was to stop frivolous litigation at initial stage, as it would not only avoid wasting of precious time of court but it also avoided to drag opposite party in an unnecessary litigation

Court was not to proceed with suit under O. VII, R. 11(d), C.P.C., which was barred by law

Suit, in the present case, was barred by S. 3 read with Ss. 8 & 12 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002; it was a pre-requisite to initiate action under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, that plaintiff, within two months after publication of defamatory matter had come to his notice or knowledge, was supposed to give fourteen days' notice in writing about his intention

In absence of such notice no action could lie

If suit without following said procedure was allowed to proceed the same would be a glaring violation of relevant provisions of Defamation Ordinance, 2002

High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court and rejected the plaint filed against defendant

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 397 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 13Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10Suit for defamation and damagesJurisdiction

Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was special enactment and case under the Ordinance had to be tried by the District Court and not by the High Court

Plaint was returned by the High Court to the plaintiff for its presentation before the court having jurisdiction subject to legal exceptions

Suit was disposed of in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1606 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 8Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11, O. VII, R.11Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3High Court appealSuit for defamationRejection of suitNew plea before Appellate CourtRes judicata, principle ofApplicability

Defendant filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint but Single Judge of High Court dismissed the application

Appellant raised fresh plea which was not allowed to be agitated in appeal before Division Bench of High Court to support application under O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C.

Validity

Application of defendant under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was rejected on his failure to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to disclose any cause of action and the law did not bar repeating of fresh application on different ground

Plea that suit was barred by law was not agitated before the Trial Court, such plea could not be examined by the appellate Court, which would not only amount to usurpation of power of Trial Court but would also deprive plaintiff of an appellate forum

No fresh plea could be raised before Appellate Court which was not taken before Trial Court in case of rejection of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge

High court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1144 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S.306Suit for defamationDeath of a partyEffect

Suit for defamation, assault and personal injuries did not survive after the death of the either parties.

2015 CLD 1095 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 8Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11 & O. VII, R. 11Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3High Court appealSuit for defamationRejection of suitNew plea before Appellate CourtRes judicata, principle ofApplicability

Defendant filed application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint but Single Judge of High Court dismissed the application

Appellant raised fresh plea before Division Bench of High Court (in High Court appeal) to support application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Validity

Application of defendant under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was rejected on his failure to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to disclose any cause of action and the law did not bar repeating of fresh application on different ground

Plea that suit was barred by law was not agitated before the Trial Court, such plea could not be examined by the Appellate Court, which would not only amount to usurpation of power of Trial Court but would also deprive plaintiff of an appellate forum

No fresh plea could be raised before Appellate Court which was not taken before Trial Court in case of rejection of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge

High Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.