Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Suit No. 999 of 2015

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders as to maintainability of the Suit

(Vide Court’s order dated 12.06.2015) :

2. For orders on CMA No.9237/2015 (U/S 151 CPC) :

3. For orders on CMA No.9238/2015 (U/O XXXIX R 1 & C CPC) :

Mrs. Shazia Hanjrah, advocate for the plaintiff.

Date of hearing : 15.06.2015.

…………

ORDER

Nadeem Akhtar, J. – The plaintiff has filed this Suit under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, seeking damages and permanent injunction against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that a book titled as ‘Truth Always Prevails’ was launched by defendant No.1 on 16.11.2014, which was subsequently translated, edited, printed, published and widely circulated in Urdu language with the title ‘Sach Ka Safar’. The instant Suit has been filed in respect of ‘Sach Ka Safar’, and for ‘Truth Always Prevails’, Suit No.163/2015 was filed by the plaintiff in January 2015 against the present defendant No.1 and another. The plaintiff has claimed that the contents of the subject book and the allegations contained therein are false and defamatory due to which he has become entitled to claim damages under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002.

2. On 12.06.2015, learned counsel for the plaintiff was put on notice to satisfy the Court about the maintainability of this Suit before this Court in view of the cases reported as 2011 CLD 1196, 2012 CLD 453 and 2014 MLD 574. The reason for seeking assistance of the learned counsel on this point was mainly the case of Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others V/S Karachi Building Control Authority through Controller of Buildings, 2012 CLD 453 (supra), wherein a learned Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, on its reading shows that it is a special law made by the Federal Government on the subject of defamation creating special remedies and also provides for a specific Court for trial of cases and appeal ; it has conferred jurisdiction for trial of cases under the Ordinance to the District Court ; the Ordinance has provided District Court as the Court of trial of cases under it ; for such purpose, it will be the District Court and no other Court including the High Court ; and, it is the appeal against the final decision and decree of the District Court which will be heard by the High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CPLA No.936-K/2011, wherein leave was granted and the operation of the said judgment was stayed. She has placed on record copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.12.2011 in CPLA No.936-K/2011. She also relied upon an order passed by this Court in Suit No.13/2015, wherein in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CPLA No.936-K/2011, a tentative view was formed that the said Suit was maintainable before this Court. It was urged by the learned counsel that even the leave granting order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by her is binding on this Court. It was further urged that the appeal is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the stay order passed therein is still in the field.

4. It has come on record that the question as to whether this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon Suits filed under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, wherein the amount involved exceeds Rs.50.000 million, or the “District Court” specified in Section 13 of the said Ordinance shall have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to try Suits under the said Ordinance, is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, no finding can be given by this Court at this stage as to whether the instant Suit is maintainable or not till the jurisdiction of this Court under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, it will not be appropriate either to return the plaint for presentation before the competent Court or not to entertain the instant Suit. Needless to say that the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the instant Suit shall depend upon the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted matter.

5. Issue notice to the defendants for a date to be fixed by the office after summer vacations in the first week of August 2015. Let the file of Suit No.163 of 2015 be tagged with the present Suit till further orders.

_________________

J U D G E