UMAR AHMAD versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BUREWALA, DISTRICT VEHARI
Plaintiff appealed under the O VII, R 11, CPC, O VII, Rr 2 and 11 Demarcation Act (IX of 1908), Section 23 and 24 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 for a defamation case. Was filed which led to the dismissal of the case. Syed's request was rejected by the trial court on time restriction, but upon filing a review by the defendant against the trial court's order, the appellate court allowed the review, did not accept the plaintiff's request, and on the dismissal of the plaintiff. The ban was imposed on the appellate court's decision on the basis of an FIR lodged against the plaintiff at the relevant police station, in which the offense against the plaintiff was also published in the newspapers; And was eventually acquitted by a magistrate court. The plaintiff sued for compensation on the basis of sections 23 and 24 of defamation after approximately 16 months of acquittal. The Fake Act, 1908 provides for a one-year filing of compensation for malpractice-based compensation. And its limitations will begin when the plaintiff is acquitted or the case is otherwise terminated under section 24 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the filing limit for defamation compensation begins with the publication of the Appellate Court. However, in the review petition, each of these issues was carefully considered and they came to the conclusion that when they met the plaintiff. Who has the right to sue for defamation of honor. But he filed a lawsuit: After nearly sixteen months of his acquittal, when he was due to be filed within a year, the reasons presented by the appellate court were explained, and he
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
