Find a Lawyer

DR. FAIZA ASGHAR versus NIGHAT NASIR SHEIKH

Section 13 - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O VII, R 10 and Section 9 - e / a / o ion - jurisdiction of the civil court, the return of the scope iv the civil court O VII, R 10 Accepted the request under , The CPC and the plaintiff returned to the plaintiff's view that it was to obtain the power of the aggrieved person by filing a case under Section 9, CPC, or the Defamation Honor Ordinance, 2002. A lawsuit should be prosecuted for non-termination of any clause or for dismissal of civil court jurisdiction over damages caused by prior honorarium - if the same dispute / litigation matters. If I was in the common law and special law fields, special law would be subject to the conditions. This special law provides for the abolition of jurisdiction of civil courts. Therefore, the enraged person had the option to recover against the jurisdiction of the general jurisdiction - civil court or against contempt proceedings under special law. In the jurisdiction of the civil court, the power and power of section 9 covered all kinds of civil litigation, the CPC - the defendant obtained the option of a civil court but his case was withdrawn while the law was invalid. While translating - the improper order was not sustained in circumstances that were put aside and the case was remanded in accordance with law - an appeal was granted accordingly, [pp. 887, 888, 889] A. CYNDI WANG LOVES YOU DOWNLOAD

P L D 2017 Lahore 884

Before Amin-ud-Din Khan and Tariq Iftikhar Ahmad, JJ

Dr. FAIZA ASGHAR—Appellant

versus

NIGHAT NASIR SHEIKH and others—Respondents

R.F.A. No.95 of 2010, heard on 13th April, 2017.

(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI

S. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10 & S. 9— e/a/wa ion— amages Jurisdiction of civil court—Plaint, return of-Scope—Civd court accepted application under O. VII, R. 10, C.P. C. and returned the plaint—Contention of plaintiff was that it was option of the aggrieved person to avail remedy by filing suit under S.9, C.P.C, or under Defamation Ordinance, 2002—Validity—Civil court was court of ultimate jurisdiction—Neither there was any repealing clause nor ouster of jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit filed before it with regard to damages on account of defamation—If in respect of same dispute/litigation general law and special law were in field, special law would prevail subject to condition that special law contained provisions of ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts—Aggrieved person, therefore, had option either to opt for redressal against defamatory action before court of general jurisdiction i.e. civil court or under the special law—Jurisdiction of civil court covered all kinds of civil litigation on the strength and force of S. 9, C.P.C.—Plaintiff had availed the option of the civil court but his plaint was returned while misinterpretin g the law—Impugned order was not sustainable in circumstances which was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law—-Appeal was allowed accordingly, [pp. 887, 888, 889] A,

Shafaqat-ur-Rehman v. Daud-ur-Rehman and 11 others PLD 2006 Pesh. 206; Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority through Controller of Buildings 2012 CLD 453 and Khadim Hussain and 12 others v. Gul Hassan Tiwano and 3 others 2013 CLD 981 ref.

Raees Ghulam Sarwar through Attorney v. Mansoor Sadiq Zaidi and 4 others PLD 2008 Kar. 458; Surjan and others v. Lajja Ram, Vendee and another, Vendor AIR (30) 1943 Lah. 48 and Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan—

____ .Art,4___Reputation of a person was important civil right guaranteed

under Art.4 of the Constitution, [p. 888] D

Mehmood A. Sheikh for Appellant.

Jamshaid Alam and Umer Tahir for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 13th April, 2017.

advocate for immigration from Gambet lawyer