The plaintiffs in sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 have claimed damages of Rs. 20,000,000, alleging that the defendant posted false news in the newspaper, damaging his reputation and professional performance. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay Rs 500,000 as compensation. Apologies and contradictions for false news, failing within fifteen days, it has been claimed that the amnesty publication dissolved the obligation to pay 500ges, Rs. That was paid by the trial court as compensation for the defendant's position on the merits that the publication of the waiver entitles him to the defense provided by Section 5 (e) of the Defamation Response Ordinance 2002. Was because the defendant only posted the waiver after the trial decision, so it cannot be properly considered as a waiver Has been and has voluntarily offered to publish the plaintiff's defense seeks a published waiver to prevent him from paying a hefty sum of Rs 1,500,000 to seek damages as a result of the court's decision. Subsequent alternatives were introduced to avoid the payment of damages as described in Section 5 (e). Defendant's case for dismissing the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was beyond doubt. In the news against the plaintiff, no evidence could be presented to prove the truth of the allegations leveled against the plaintiff, so the publication of these news reports was defamed, appeal r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
