The defendants in Articles 3, 4, S and 9, have alleged that the defendant has published false news in the newspaper, claiming damages of Rs. 20,000,000 which damages his reputation and professional performance. Yes, the trial court failed to publish an apology for the apology and contradiction of false news within fifteen days after the court ordered the damages as Rs. 500,000, failing which the claimant claimed that the sum of Rs. Rs. 15,00,000 can be left from the defendant's claim that the amnesty publication dissolves the obligation to pay Rs. 500,000 as damages from this trial. Have done. Defendant's position on the court's correctness that the publication of the waiver entitled him to the defense provided by Section 5 (e) of the Defamation Response Ordinance 2002 because the defendant published the apology only after the trial decision. Was, therefore, voluntarily offered the appellant published by the defendant and could not be considered as a proper waiver as the offer was made to save him from paying a huge sum of Rs. 15,000,000. As part of the damages, pursuant to the judgment of an apologist, shall be considered in section 5 (e) to avoid the payment of alternative damages. It cannot be called a proper apology. Defamation Ordinance, 2002 Defendant's allegation of compensation for the defendant was beyond doubt. The plaintiff could not present any evidence to prove the truth of the allegations leveled against the plaintiff. The appeal of the news publication, the appeal was dismissed. r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
