EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--- A defamatory statement showing that Mian Jamil Shah respondent No.1 herein has grabbed a great deal of property belonging to widows and orphans was published in Daily "Khubrain" dated 27-3-1995 Daily "Mashriq" of the same date and in the Daily "Khubrain" dated 29-3-1995. Since the statement was alleged to have been published at the instance of Abdullah Jan and Mian Moeenuddin, appellant and respondent No.2, herein, respectively, A respondent No.1 instituted a suit for damages ,to the tune of Rs.6,00,00,000 (Rs. Six crors) in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nowshera. When the learned trial Court after recording evidence decreed the suit of respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.20,,00,000 vide his judgment and decree dated 28-4- 1998, the appellant filed R.F.A. No.54 while respondent No.1 filed R.F.A. No.55 of 1998 for enhancement of the amount. As both of them arise out of the same lis, they are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in R.F.A. No.54 of 1998 that where it has.
Not been proved on the record as to who made the statement thus, published in the newspapers, the suit of the respondent was liable to be dismissed. He next submitted that, if at all, by any means, it is assumed that this statement was made by the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4, it being based on truth cannot call for an award of any amount of damages.
3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that where one of the witnesses examined by the appellant admitted in his cross-examination that whatever was published in the newspapers was the essence of what was stated by the appellant and the people who gathered at his residence at the relevant time, it was proved that it was published at the instance of the appellant, therefore, the suit of respondent No.1 was rightly decreed. While controverting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the truth of the statement, the learned counsel submitted that where the appellant did not specifically plead it in his written statement, it cannot be considered altogether. The learned counsel to support his contention placed reliance on the case of Ajit Singh v. Radha Kishen AIR 1931 Lah. 246. The learned counsel, then submitted that where the remaining defendants have pot preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment, it shall be deemed to be final at least against them. In support of R.F.A. No.55 of 1998, the learned counsel submitted that where it is proved on the record that defamatory statement was published at the instance of the appellant and the other respondent with malice, the suit should have been decreed in the terms of prayer.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The record reveals that the statement, mentioned above, was published in the newspapers recounted above. Though the appellant disputed this statement but one of his P.Ws. When examined in the Court, admitted that whatever was published in the newspapers was the essence of what was stated by the appellant and the people who gathered at his residence at the relevant time. Truth of the statement has neither been pleaded in the written statement nor proved through the evidence on the record, as such it remained unsubstantiated. The case of Ajit Singh v. Radha Kishen (supra) may be quite germane to the situation. In this view B of the matter, we do not think, the, impugned finding is open to any exception. However, it cannot be sustained as to the amount of damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 when no convincing evidence has been adduced by the appellant to prove his good reputation and the impact of the statement thereon. He was required to prove that he was in fact belittled in the estimation of the people because of the said statement.
When no such evidence has come forth, a token damages to the tune of Rs.20,000 (Rs. Twenty thousands) would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, notwithstanding the fact that some of the defendants have not preferred appeal against the impugned judgment. This Court, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 33, Order XLI of the C.P.C. Has the power to grant relief even to the non-appealing respondents, if their case is similar to that of the party filing appeal. The cases of Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur, District Bahawalpur and others v. Col. Abdul Majeed and others 1997 SCM R 1692 and Haji Rehmdil v. The Province of Baluchistan and another 1999 SCM R 1060, may well be referred in this behalf. We, therefore, modify the impugned judgment 'by reducing the amount of Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.20,000 only.
6. With the above modification, this appeal is disposed of As we have reduced the amount of damages in the connected appeal, the appeal filed by respondent No.1 has become infructuous and is, thus, dismissed.