CHIEF EDITOR MUHAMMAD RIAZ ANJUM vs Dr — 2023 MLD 525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

CHIEF EDITOR MUHAMMAD RIAZ ANJUM VS Dr. MOHAMMAD SHAHBAZ Ss. 3, 8 & 9---Suit for defamation---Recovery of damages---Magnitude of suffering---Determination---Statutory notice, issuance of---Proof---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.

CHIEF EDITOR MUHAMMAD RIAZ ANJUM vs Dr — 2023 MLD 525 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD