RIASAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF S — 2026 PLD 200 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.

RIASAT ALI VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF S.13---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chapter XIV, Part A and Volume IV, Chapter I, Part G---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.19---Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.6(2)---Suit for defamation---Suit entertained by Additional District Judge and not District Judge---Legality---Whether only District Judge can try the suit for defamation or same can be entrusted to Additional District Judge---Additional District Judge empowered to exercise same judicial powers as of District Judge---Territorial jurisdiction to institute defamation suit---Scope---Plaintiff'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.

RIASAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF S — 2026 PLD 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD