University Law College, Quetta"

Assignment # 01
Title: Case Briefing
Submitted By: Muhammad Zahid
Enrollment # 509
Semester .6th
Submitted to: Mr. Asmatullah
Title of the case.

Regular first appeal number 140 of 2012, heard on 19th may 2022.

Reference

2023 MLD 525

JUDGES

J.Ahmed Nadeem Arshad and Muhammad Masood Jahangir

Date of judgement

9.8.2023

2:42 AM

Relevance in jurisprudence

This case is related to the topic legal rights and duties with respect to defamation.

History of the case

One the previous case the plentif (Doctor) filed a case of defamation against the defendant (news editor)
under the section 15th of defamation ordinance 2002, where the plentif suit for recovery was 10000000
rupees as damages for the defamatory words used by the news editor in his news paper “Weekly Press
forum Chakwal”. But the amount was decreased by learnt trial court to 5 lac rupees in 16 th 2021.

Facts of the case

That the respondent instituted a auit for damages under section 09 of the defamation ordinance 2002.

That the appellant (Chief Editor) published defamatory words against the plaintiff.

That the defamatory statement publication caused harm to his status and his health ,hence lovered his
esteem.

The chief Editor don’t refused the publication of the defamatory words .

An inquiry was held where by doctor was found guilty .

Learned court for the appellant found that the judgment was contrary to law and facts as it was the
result of Miss reading and non reading of evidence on record the trial court failed to consider the report
of police station Chakwal.

That the respondent failed to send notice which is the mandatory requirement of law.

Issues

Learned trail court framed issues

Whether plaintiff has no cause of action

Whether the defendant being chief Editor of weekly press forum Chakwal published defamatory News
against the plaintiff.

Whether the defamatory statement or words cause injury to his reputation.

Whether plaintiff is entitle to recover one crore had damages from the defendant under section 9 of
defamatory ordinance same 2002.

Rules

Defamation defined in section 3 of the defamation ordinance 2002 section 4 defamation ordinance 2002
regarding the presumption of damages.

Section 5 defenses available to defendant

Article 14 of constitution of Pakistan restarting dignity of men regarding as aspect of protection against
defamation.

Section 8 regarding notice to wrong doer within fourteen days

Analysis

The appellant tried to prove the guilt o and negligence of doctor as they didn’t denied the defamatory
statement. The court also analyzed that the defamatory words were used in news paper which shows
that appellant didn’t performed as an ideal journalism.

The court analyzed that it was libel defamation.

The defamation is not only against the law but also the unwritten norms and values and the conventions,
hence the observation to this is considered as an irresponsible journalism.

The through evidences tried to justify the guilt of doctor towards the death of the patient.

And neither negated the publication of news.

They was no justification of using the derogatory words in the news also failed to raise any defence plea
provided in section 5 2002.

Decision of the court

The epitome of above discussion is that speak is without any force/substance, hence, the same is
dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost.

MH/M-155/L Appeal dismissed.

Conclusion

This case is based on defamation in which the parties are the plaintiff doctor(Mr. Shehbaz) and the
defendant was the chief editor of the news the plaintiff filled a case against the editor for the derogatory
statement used by the editor in the news paper daily press forum Chakwal, which was a kind legal
defamation for which the doctor filed a case demanded 1 crore rupees as special damages for which
plaintiff had to prove the loss which he suffered mentally as well as to his status and reputation in
society.

The plaintiff had fulfilled all the requirements of section 8 of defamation ordinance 2002 the doctor
knocked the of the court and fulfilled all the due processes and he himself appeared P.W 1 And Dr.
Muhammad Shakeel as P.W 2 and M Usman postman as P.W 3 and with a piece of newspaper where the
defamatory words were published in the same way the defendant witnesses were crossed in court DW 1
Ghulam Abbas and DW 2 Khalid Javaid and also the documentary evidences. The court found that the
defendant witnesses were the relatives of deceased person for which they claimed the death of
deceased as negligence of doctor. The case was heard and the court found that news editor is guilty and
provided the damages to doctor 5 lac rupees and then the aggrieved party (editor) went for appeal
against the decision has appellant defendant and filled appeal against the decision and tried to prove the
previous judgement against the fact and wrong . By due analysis of learned court the court declined to
interfare in the judgment and decreed passed by trial court was considered right. The appeal got
dismissed and the decisions of the previous court remained .