Mst. NAWABZADI Versus Mst. TANVEER KAUSAR alias TANVEER BEGUM

SAID MAROOF KHAN, J .---Mst. Nawabzadi defendant petitioner owns a House 'bearing No.675/D while the three plaintiffs-respondents Safdar Ali, Hashmat Ali sons of Sultan Khan and their sister Mst. Tanveer Kausar alias Tanveer Begum are the owners of adjacent Houses bearing Nos. 672/DA, 673/D and 674/D situate in Mohallah Girdnali Bannu City. The House of Mst. Nawabzadi defendant-petitioner is lying adjacent to House No.674/D owned by Mst. Tanveer Kausar plaintiff-respondent and her two brothers named above. Some dispute arose between the parties regarding common wall or House Nos.674/D and 675/D and in consequence thereof Mst. Tanveer Kausar plaintiff-respondent lodged a civil suit on 24-7-1997 against Mst. Nawabzadi defendant-petitioner and her brothers and two sisters for recovery of Rs.24,000 and also for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the common wall. The amount claimed was stated to be the hair share of expenditure allegedly incurred on the construction of common wall. The suit was, however, dismissed by the learned Civil Judge Bannu on 6-11-2002.

2. During pendency of the above suit Mst. Nawabzadi defendant-petitioner submitted an application to the Commissioner Bannu Division on 12-10-2000 complaining that Mst. Tanveer Kausar plaintiff-respondent had raised construction without sanction of Municipal Committee Bannu and had also encroached upon some portion of the house owned by the defendant-petitioner. In the second and third line of her application submitted to the Commissioner Bannu Division for redressal of her grievance she had termed the plaintiffs-respondents a s(NosirBaz) ,(Dhokha Baz ), (Jailsaz), (Qabza Group Mafia ) and (Drug Group Mafia). The plaintiffs-respondents Safdar Ali, Hashmat Ali and Mst. Tanveer Kausar got copies of the above application and instituted three independent suits against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of damages on the ground that the above allegations levelled in the application dated 12-10-2000 were false and malicious which had damaged their reputation in the society and also caused mental torture to them.

3. Safdar Ali plaintiff-respondent had instituted Suit No.215/1 of 2001 claiming damages of Rs.25,000 while Hashmat Ali plaintiff-respondent in his Suit No.110/1 of 2001 prayed for recovery of damages of Rs.10,00,000 and their sister Mst. Tanveer Kausar plaintiff-respondent had asked for damages of Rs.24,000 in her Suit bearing No.118/I. The defendant-petitioner Mst. Nawabzadi submitted her written statements and contested the suit. Separate issues, though identical, were framed in all the three suits and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce for and against, Mr. Shaukatullah Shah the learned Civil Judge-III Bannu dismissed the two Suits bearing No.215/1 and 110/1 instituted by Hashmat Ali and Safdar Ali vide separate judgments dated 12-12-2003. The Snit bearing No.116/1 instituted by Mst. Tanveer Kausar for recovery of damages of Rs.24,000 was pending in the Court of Muhammad Nasir Khan learned Civil Judge IV Bannu who vide judgment dated 26-6-2003 decreed the suit in her favour.

4. The judgment dated 26-6-2003 was questioned by Mst. Nawabzadi defendant-petitioner by filing appeal. Safdar Ali and Hashmat Ali also filed appeals challenging the dismissal of their suit. The appeals filed by Safdar Ali and Hashmat Ali came up for hearing before Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan Additional District Judge IV Bannu and while accepting the appeal through separate judgments dated 19-1-2004 he had passed decrees for Rs.15,000 and Rs.10.000 as damages in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents Hashmat Ali and Safdar Ali respectively. The appeal lodged by Mst. Nawabzadi against the judgment and decree in suit of Mst. Tanveer Kasusar plaintiff-respondent was partly accepted and the amount of damages was reduced from Rs.24,000 to Rs.15,000 by Mr. Muhammad Adil Khan learned Additional District Judge III Bannu vide judgment dated 16-9-2003.

5. Dissatisfied with the above judgments dated 16-9-2003 and 19-1-2004 Mst. Nawabzadi filed Civil Revisions Nos.188 of 2003, 103 of 2004 and 111 of 2004 seeking dismissal of all the three suits whereas Safdar Ali Khan and Hashmat Ali lodged Civil Revisions Nos.94 of 2004 and 95 of 2004 in this Court vindicating their claim for enhancement of damages in accordance with the prayer made in their plaints. Since in all the three suits common question of law and fact is involved as in all the suits the claim for damages is based on one and the same document i.e. the application dated 12-10-2000 of Mst. Nawabzadi defendant-petitioner, therefore, all the Civil Revisions No.188 of 2003, 94 of 2004, 95 of 2004, 103 of 2004 and 111 of 2004 are being disposed of by this single judgment.

6. Muhammad Ayaz Khan Qasuria Advocate appeared for the defendant-petitioner whereas the plaintiffs-respondents were represented by Mr. Gauhar Zaman Kundi Advocate. I have heard their arguments and perused the record of all the three cases.

7. As stated above in all the three suits the plaintiffs-respondents Safdar Ali, Hashmat Ali and Mst. Tanveer Kausar had claimed damages on the only ground that in the application dated 12-10-2000, marked as Exh.PW.1/2 in Suit No.118/1 of Mst. Tanveer Kausar, addressed to the Commissioner Bannu Division, the defendant-petitioner had maliciously used derogatory words against the plaintiffs-respondents falsely declaring them as (NosirBaz) ,(Dhokha Baz ), (Jailsaz), (Qabza Group Mafia ) and (Drug Group Mafia) and that the words so used had damaged their reputation in the society and caused mental torture to them. The use of these words against the plaintiffs-respondents was not denied by the defendant-petitioner and consequently all the suits for damages were decreed against her.

8. The question which needs determination in the above revision petitions is whether the words used in the application dated 12-10-2000, copy Exh.PW.1/2, were maliciously used by the defendant-petitioner to defame the three plaintiffs-respondents and to cause damage to their reputation in the society and whether the allegations entitled the plaintiffs-respondents to claim damages or not. The application Exh.PW.1/2 forming the basis of suits of plaintiffs-respondents consists of four pages wherein the defendant-petitioner had elaborately expressed her grievance against the plaintiff-respondents. A cursory look at the application would show that the parties were locked in litigation concerning the dispute relating to a common wall. Mst. Tanveer Kausar plaintiff-respondent had dragged the defendant-petitioner in the civil Court as a result of the said dispute and she had prayed for recovery of Rs.24,000 against the defendant-petitioner as half share of the expenditure allegedly incurred on the construction of the common wall. The defendant-petitioner had been making appearance in Court regarding that case since long. In addition she had been facing altercation at the spot with regard to the disputed wall and that fact infuriated her and in heat of passion she submitted a lengthy application Exh.PW.1/2 to the Commissioner Bannu Division seeking his intervention in the matter.

It was alleged in the application that the re-construction of the common wall was made by the plaintiffs-respondents without the sanction of the Municipal Committee and that during re-construction they had illegally encroached upon some area belonging to the defendant-petitioner. The application was meant for redressal of her grievance but in order to attract the attention of the Commissioner and to get his sympathy, the facts were exaggerated by the defendant-petitioner. On the basis of the allegations complained of it cannot be stated that the application was aimed at maligning the plaintiffs-respondents.

10. The plea of the plaintiffs-respondents that the words used in the application had damaged their reputation in the society is also ill-founded. The reason being that the application had not gained wide circulation. Except the Commissioner, the EAC to whom the application was marked and the concerned staff, no other person had seen the application before the institution of the present cases. The general public/society before whom the plaintiffs-respondents feel themselves degraded on account of the application Exh.PW.1/2 never know about the application or its contents and thus no question of damage to their reputation in the society on account of the application did arise.

11. The mere use of indecent words against a person does not entitle him to claim damages from the person having used the indecent language. In such-like situation the allegations have to be looked into in the context of society, time and place and the circumstances in which the allegations were made. When the allegations complained of in the present cases are looked into in the above context, one would not find the same libelous. After reading the entire application I get an impression that the alleged derogatory words were used in anger the cause of which was the civil litigation launched by the plaintiffs-respondents and their alleged interference with the common wall of the houses of the parties. In such like circumstances it could be expected of every ordinary man and woman in our society to utter and use indecent words like the ones used in the application Exh. PW.1/2. There is no evidence to show that the defendant-petitioner had maliciously defamed the plaintiffs-respondents and caused any incalculable damage to their reputation. The allegations in the application are neither defamatory nor malicious and the same have not exposed the plaintiffs-respondents to any hatred, contempt, ridicule nor the same have injured them in their profession and as such they were not entitled to claim damages from the defendant-petitioner.

12. The result of the above discussion is that Civil Revisions Nos.188/2003, 103/2004 and 111/2004 are accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suits filed by Hashmat Ali, Safdar Ali and Mst. Tanveer Kausar stand dismissed and consequently the Civil Revisions No.94/2004 and 95/2004 filed by Safdar Ali and Hashmat Ali respectively also stand dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./195/P Order accordingly.