MALIK MUHAMMAD ASGHAR versus HAJI MUHAMMAD AKBAR DARVESH
Sections 3 and 2 (DD) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001), the commencement of Section 88 defamation, excluded the scope of suit for damages due to defamation, when the plaintiff appeared before the plaintiff. When the plaintiff's request was transferred, the defendant sought damages on the grounds of honor. The union council says the plaintiff seized the property of the legitimate owners. Which was also published as a newspaper story and filed under the blasphemy ordinance 2002 by the defendant, the Union Council, by the defendants in a statement, representation or publication subject to criminal activity and culpability. Was subjected to lies of , The record did not show, to prove the distinction had to be drawn between a statement that was not proven and which was clearly proved wrong, an element which was missing in the present case, said Nazim, the union applied. The Council for Dispute Resolution, which was provided under section 88 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, failed to prove that the plaintiff failed to terminate the complaint before the moderator in the publication of the newspaper Gap. Was created for In the absence of any conspiracy between the defendant and the publisher to discredit the plaintiff and the publisher, the petitioner denied the element of a viable republic prior to its publication, on the basis of his alleged liability with the principal. The lawsuit was filed. However, in the present case, the publisher was rescued and the plaintiff was merely prosecuting the defendant, and the defendant could not be prosecuted as the inventor of the publication and the alleged defamation.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
