Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1668 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Asim Iqbal vs Mateen Sadiq Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1668 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Asim Iqbal VS Mateen Sadiq Ss.5, 6, 7 & 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Companies Act (XIX of 2017), S.483---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.193 & 228---Suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation---Defence of 'absolute privilege', availability of---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Factual controversy---Recording of evidence, requirement of---Order of Trial court rejecting the plaint set aside as the matter required recording of evidence---The appellant filed a defamation suit against the respondents for allegedly issuing a defamatory letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) which he claimed damaged his reputation---Trial court rejected the plaint under O.VII R.11 CPC on the ground that the impugned letter was issued in the respondents' official capacity and was protected under "absolute privilege" as per S.6 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance, 2002) and S.483 of the Companies Act, 2017 (the Act 2017)---The appellant challenged this rejection in the present appeal contending that such determinations required evidence and could not be resolved at the preliminary stage---Two important points for consideration by the High Court were as to "i. Whether the defamatory letter qualified as a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of S.483 of the Act, 2017? and; ii. Whether the defamatory letter was written by the respondents in their personal or official capacity?"---Held: Perusal of S.483 of the Act, 2017 revealed that whilst powers of the civil court had been vested in the Commission for the purposes outlined in subsection (1) of S.483 in respect of any "proceedings" or "enquiry", the same attained the status of a "judicial proceeding" only within the meaning and for the purposes of Ss.193 and 228 of the P.P.C.---The defamatory letter visibly did not fall in the said category and it could not be classified as part of a "judicial proceeding"---Therefore, reliance of the Trial court on the above noted provision, at least for the purposes of rejection of plaint, was unfounded and incorrect---With regards to the second question for determination by the High Court, same required evidence to be recorded---The appellant should have been given an opportunity to examine the respondents and put forward necessary questions to them to determine the capacity in which the defamatory letter was written---The conclusion by the Trial Court in reference to the said letter being written by the respondents in their "official positions" could not have been made prior to recording of evidence---Trial Court went over and above the permissible scope of O.VII R.11 C.P.C.---Perusal of the impugned order reflected that the Trial court had not distinguished between rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit---Matter was remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to conclude the proceedings within six months---Order of rejection of plaint was set aside and present appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1668 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Asim Iqbal vs Mateen Sadiq Ss — 2025 MLD 1668 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD