ZAFAR ALI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PAKPATTAN and another
This writ petition addresses whether a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution is maintainable before a civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or exclusively before the District Court under Section 13 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002. The petitioner instituted a recovery suit before the Civil Court, which was later ordered to be rejected by the lower appellate court on jurisdictional grounds. The Lahore High Court held that the Defamation Ordinance 2002 contains no repealing or ouster clause regarding the general jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, an aggrieved person may either file a regular suit before the civil court or approach the District Court under the Ordinance. The impugned judgment was set aside, restoring the suit before the trial court.
- Is a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution maintainable before a civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 despite the enactment of the Defamation Ordinance 2002?
- Does the Defamation Ordinance 2002 contain any ouster clause barring the general jurisdiction of civil courts?
- Can an aggrieved person file a regular suit for damages before the civil court instead of proceeding under the Defamation Ordinance 2002?
- Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 13, Defamation Ordinance 2002
- Article 189, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.--- A short question is involved in this writ petition whether a suit for recovery of amount as damages on account of malicious prosecution is maintainable before the court of ultimate jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or the same can be adjudicated upon before the District Court under Section 13 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002.
2. Precise facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs,10,00,000/- as damages was instituted on 27.09.2004 by the petitioner on account of malicious prosecution against the respondent before the Civil Court. The respondent initially filed contested written statement, but after an elapse of 3- 1/4 years made an application under Order VII, rules 10/11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection or return of the plaint, which was declined by the civil court through order dated 20.4.2010.
However, in Civil Revision, the order passed by the civil court was reversed and the plaint of the suit instituted by the petitioner was rejected through the impugned judgment, which is under question in the instant writ petition.
2.(sic) Arguments heard and record scanned.
3. Undoubtedly, Section 13 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 prescribes the remedy to enforce the right thereunder before the District Court, but a close recital of the said Ordinance would reveal that the same does not contain any repealing or ouster clause regarding the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain such a suit under the general law i.e, Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The door of Civil Court being the court of ultimate jurisdiction can be knocked at in respect of all the civil matters, unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by the statute regarding any specific matter. Since the right against defamation .Was already recognized and actionable under I general law even prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance ibid, hence without a clause ousting the general jurisdiction of the civil court, any person aggrieved by an act of defamation can avail of such remedies and he may either pursue his case by filing a regular suit before the civil court under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or by making a complaint under the provisions of the Ordinance ibid before the District court as any of the avenue is not closed for such an aggrieved person.
4. In the present case, the Petitioner filed a regular suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and did not avail of the remedy as provided by the Ordinance ibid, therefore, the observation of the learned lower appellate court through the impugned judgment that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit is, without any mandate of law.
' The apex Court has already clinched the said proposition authoritatively in the judgment reported as Ch. Zulfiqar All Cheema v. Farhan Arshad Mir PLD 2015 SC 134 and observed that the reading of the Ordinance as a whole did not preclude a person from initiating an action for damages under the law of Torts by filing a suit for damages under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The verdict of the apex court under Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is binding on every organ of the State including the subordinate judiciary.
5. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation to observe that the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2010 has been passed while exercising the jurisdiction in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which being ultra vires, coram non judice and void is not sustainable. Consequently while allowing this Constitutional Petition the impugned judgment is set aside and the suit instituted by the petitioner will be deemed to be pending before the learned trial court, who will decide the same on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Pakpattan on 24.10.2016, who will entrust the suit file to a court of competent jurisdiction for further proceedings.
Cited by 5 cases
- RIASAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF 2026 PLD 200
- Samaa TV and others vs Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan and others 2023 SHC 1016
- Messrs Fact Finders (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs CNBC Pakistan and others 2022 CLC 1397
- Haji Muhammad Musa vs Major (Retd.) Nadir Ali 2018 [M] C.L.R. 295
- Haji MUHAMMAD MUSA Versus Major (Retd.) NADIR ALI 2018 YLRN 265