Plaintiffs in sections 3, 9 and 13 of the suit for defamation damages alleged that the defendant had written a baseless and irrelevant letter to the plaintiff's superiors. And a proper investigation was initiated against the plaintiff for this matter, and after a proper investigation, he was acquitted of the allegations leveled by the defendant and the defendant's letter / complaint was filed by his department and his family. I had damaged the reputation of the plaintiff, resulting in physical and mental torture for him and his family. During the trial, the trial court had to prove the plaintiff's letters to the plaintiff for issuing / writing to the plaintiff's letters under the law for defamation. His superiors, colleagues and other family members and family members, but the plaintiff's leadership in this regard lacks evidence on record; many letters / complaints, which were the bone of the plaintiff's claim, were not brought to the record. Was. As was not presented in the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove that as a result of the inquiry, he was required under the suspended law to serve the plaintiff within two months of taking notice of the infamous material. He came to the knowledge, but if this was not done, then the claim in the mere claim will not exclude the plaintiff from his liability when it was denied by the defendant. In this way it was not in accordance with the law that the material on the available documents and records could not be justified in any way that the plaintiff's claim in favor of the plaintiff could be sued for damages as it was baseless, not enforceable. Was, in the circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
