Summary: Background:Sher Afzal filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the order dated 10-10-2018 passed by the District Judge Gilgit. The petitioner's application under Section 12(2) CPC, which sought to invalidate a previous court order, was dismissed by the District Judge without framing issues. The petitioner initially sued Jangi Bahadur for defamation, seeking Rs. 50 crore in damages. The case was withdrawn on 10-05-2016 on the grounds of a settlement, but the petitioner later claimed the withdrawal was unauthorized and filed an application under Section 12(2) CPC, which was dismissed.----Issues:Whether the District Judge Gilgit erred in dismissing the application under Section 12(2) CPC without framing issues.Whether the petitioner's consent was obtained for the withdrawal of the defamation suit.Whether the grounds for filing an application under Section 12(2) CPC (fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction) were met.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Judge Ali Baig dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the District Judge Gilgit's dismissal of the Section 12(2) CPC application was correct. The court found that the three grounds for filing under Section 12(2) CPC?fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction?were not present in this case. The petitioner actively participated in the court proceedings and appeared before the trial court on 10-05-2016, when he verbally requested the suit's withdrawal due to a settlement. The court ruled that recording the petitioner's statement was not mandatory, and the order's validity could not be challenged without concrete evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.----Citations/Precedents:Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)Defamation Ordinance 2002

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 500 & 501---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.200 & 201---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defamation---Private complaint---Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to fine on the basis of moving false complaints and publishing pamphlets with defamatory words against the respondents---Complainant produced two witnesses including his brother in support of his claim---Record showed that Trial Court, after recording statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and hearing final arguments, without assigning any reason, instead announcing order on merit, restarted the trial and issued process for evidence to the Additional Collector as court witness---Trial Court, after recording statement of court witness, recorded statement of accused under Ss.342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. second time---Accused, after second statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. had examined himself on oath and had produced documents showing character of the complainant---Record showed that Trial Court failed to appreciate that even complainant's own brother had not supported him---Trial Court misinterpreted the evidence with reference to the burden of proof in criminal cases---Record did not show that the complainant had by way of rejoinder affidavit denied the contents of counter affidavit of officials containing the allegation of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant and, therefore, it ought to have been accepted as admitted document about a truth---Trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant was not aggrieved by derogatory remarks on oath against him---If such remarks did not cause any defamation to the complainant then how a letter written to any government functionary, which had not been conveyed to the complainant, would have caused any injury to the complainant---Trial Court clearly favoured the complainant when he convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 100,000/- as punishment and further ordered that fine be paid to the complainant---Trial Court had no authority to handover the amount of fine to the complainant---Amount of fine imposed as punishment had to be deposited by court through its ministerial office in the government treasury---Circumstances established that complainant failed to prove his claim---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.(b) Criminal trial-------Burden of proof---Scope---Burden is never shifted on accused unless the prosecution evidence is found to have proved the commission of offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary: R. 31 of KPK Govt. Servants ( Conduct) Rules, 1987, Defamation Ordinance, 2002. Govt servant has to obtain sanction from Govt:/ department before filling suit for damages/ vindication of his public acts or character.

Summary: The background of the case is that the respondent had filed a suit against the appellant for defamation and mental torture. The appellant filed an appeal in the District Court, which was later returned on a jurisdictional issue. The appellant then filed a fresh appeal before the Peshawar High Court. During the proceedings, the respondent raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the fresh appeal, as it was not filed within the proper legal forum and was also time-barred. The appellant's lawyer argued on the merits of the case but failed to address the preliminary objections adequately. The judgment states that the appellant's fresh appeal is not maintainable due to its procedural errors. The Court refers to various legal precedents supporting the respondent's stance. The Court also rejects the appellant's argument that the impugned judgment is void, as there was no evidence to support this claim. The Court dismisses the appeal, upholds the original judgment, and orders the appellant to pay costs.

Summary: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)-------S. 3---Suit for defamation and damages, dismissal of---Professional/ habitual litigant---Requirement of damage to reputation not proved---Plaintiffs (advocates) filed a suit fordefamation against the defendants alleging that they published certain material in newspaperswherein serious allegations were levelled against the plaintiffs to damage their honour in theeyes of society---Said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court; held, that perusal of subjectpublications did not reveal any material causing damage of reputation and humiliation to theplaintiffs---After publication of such material the plaintiffs did not make any effort to rebutthe same---Record also showed that the plaintiffs and defendants were involved in certainother litigation---Moreover the concerned District Judge of the area had issued a list ofadvocates who were involved in frivolous litigation, and the name of one of the plaintiffsappeared in such list---Trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs---Appealwas dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (LVI of 2002)------S. 3--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O. XVII, Rr. 2 & 3--Suit for Damages--Noopportunity of hearing for producing evidence--Press conference--Footage played on newschannels--Membership denied by Chamber of commerce--Written statement--List of witness--Right of evidence was closed--Decreed--Challenge to--Order and decree of trial Court clearlyreveals that trial Court on failure of appellant for recording statement, straightaway decreed suitwithout discussing issues on basis of evidence on record--It is important to mention here thattrial Court has passed decree within provisions of Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. as revealed fromorder sheets of trial Court due to reason that appellant (defendant) had failed to produce evidenceor record his statement--Record of case further reveals that after framing of issues, respondent/plaintiff produced 17 witnesses, but trial Court neither discussed issues nor decided matter onbasis of evidence on record and simply decreed suit in favour of respondent as prayed for withdirection to appellant to pay Rs.5 Billion as damages for leveling unfounded, frivolous, fictitiousand malicious allegations against him with cost of suit--Trial Court in instant case had refusedadjournment and decided suit forthwith--Term ìdecide forthwithî reference to decision (if thereis evidence on record) within meaning of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 20, C.P.C and section 2and Sub-section (9) of section 2 as well as Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 20, C.P.C.--Decisionreferred in the aforesaid provision means judicial determination in accordance with evidencebefore the Court--Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. contemplates that the Court has to decide the suit,which means material and evidence brought on record is to be considered in order to decide suit,if there is no evidence, then Court may proceed same either under Rule 2 or Rule 1 of OrderXVII, C.P.C.--It is settled clause that if facts set out in plaint are treated to have been admitted, ajudgment and decree cannot be possibly passed without requiring plaintiff to prove fact pleadedin plaint--It is only when Court for recording reason and is verbally satisfied that there is no fact,which needs to be proved at stance of plaintiff in view of deemed admission by defendant, but ifplaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of facts involved in case and wheredivergent pleadings of parties issues were framed, then it would not be safe for Court to recordjudgment/decree without directing plaintiff to prove fact so as to settle factual controversy--These principles not only applied under Rule 3 of Order XVII, C.P.C. but same would beapplicable when Court has to record applicable when Court has to record an ex-parte judgment--It is also settled proposition of law that even an ex-parte decree is required to be passed onproper appreciation of evidence on record and without considering evidence on record, suchdecree could be construed nullity in eyes of law--It is also observed that proper opportunity of producing evidence was also not provided to appellant, as appellant had filed list of witnesses on6th August 2009 and matter was fixed after two days on 8th August 2009 and then or August15th 2009, his right of adducing evidence was closed and matter was for 18th August 2009 andon 3rd September 2009 while closing statement appellant decreed suit under Order XVII Rule 3,CRC--Therefore appears that proper opportunity either producing evidence or recordingstatement has not been afforded, particularly in a case of damages of Rs.5 Billion and thus,decreed suit without discussing any evidence or giving any reason for same--R.F.A. was partlyallowed.

Summary: Background: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages amounting to fifty million rupees in a defamation case. During the trial, the defendant sought to introduce certain documents as additional evidence, claiming they were relevant to the case and were not available earlier. The trial court rejected the application, and the defendant’s appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the defendant should be allowed to produce additional documents as evidence at a late stage in the trial. -----2- Whether the courts below erred in applying the relevant provisions of the law regarding the submission of documentary evidence. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal. The Court reasoned that: Under Order XIII, rule 1, CPC, parties are required to produce documentary evidence at the first hearing unless they can show a valid reason for non-production at that time. The defendant failed to provide a valid reason for not presenting the documents earlier. The documents sought to be produced did not have any apparent relevance to the issues in the case. Since the defendant did not show "good cause" for late submission, as required by Order XIII, rule 2, CPC, the lower courts were justified in rejecting the application. The concurrent findings of both courts were proper and did not warrant interference. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hanif v. Province of Punjab [NLR 1981 Civil 37] Kh. Muhammad Akbar Butt v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others [PLD 1996 Azad J&K 10] Rashid Mehmood & another vs. Sardar Begum & 6 others [2013 SCR 200] Haji Baz Muhammad and another vs. Mst. Humera alias Shireen Taj and 3 others [PLD 2003 Quetta 128]

Summary: Defamation Ordinance does not contain any provision regarding summary dismissal of plaint. S.10 provides that CPC and QSO shall mutatis mutandi apply to proceedings so under O-VII R-11 court can reject the plaint.

Summary: S, 9 & O.II, R.2 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002), Preamble--- Malicious prosecution --- Ingredients and proof --- defamation Ordinance, 2002 did not contain any ouster clause or any overriding effect qua jurisdiction of civil court.

Summary: S.6,7,8 Defamation Ord-2002:Qualified privileges,defamatory statement during civil litigation--non serving of notice within time