SALIM KHAN, J.---Detailed arguments of the learned counsel of the appellant were heard and record was perused by me. A suit for Rs,24,500 as damages, defamation and mental torture was filed by Shafaqat-ur-Rehman against Daud-ur-Rehman vide Suit No,106/1 instituted on 31-7-2004.
Vide order dated 7-1-2005, the learned Civil Judge, Ghazi District Haripur returned the plaint under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. To the plaintiff with direction to submit the same before the proper forum as the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the light of the provisions of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The appellant filed Civil Revision No,18 on 2-4-2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghazi who decided that no illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, Ghazi, and he dismissed the revision petition. The appellant then sent notice to the respondent and filed Suit No,8/1 on 25-8-2005 in the Court of A.D.J. Ghazi against Daud-ur-Rehman and other 11 persons for an amount of Rs,54,000 as financial damages at the rate of Rs,4,500 per person, and also for Rs,1,20,000 at the rate of Rs,10,000 per person. It is worth-mentioning at this stage that the original suit was only against Daud-ur- Rehman and that was for Rs,24,500 as damages, defamation and mental torture, while the second mentioned suit was against 12 persons at the rate of Rs,10,000 per person for defamation, at the rate of Rs,4,500 per person for financial damages, for Rs,12,000, as medical expenses at the rate of Rs,1,000 per person, and for Rs,1,86,000 for defamation and mental torture. In fact the amount of Rs,1,86,000 was the total of Rs,54,000 plus Rs,1,20,000 and Rs,12,000. The suit of the plaintiff was, however, dismissed on the application of the defendants filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Vide order dated 4-1-2006, on the ground that the notice given to the respondents was time-barred:
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the time spent by the appellant in the wrong forum was condonable as it was not the fault of the appellant and the Courts directed him to go to the other forum. He also submitted that an application was submitted by respondent No,1 against the appellant on 3-5-2000 and the report dated 9-5-2000 regarding the same was in favour of the appellant. He further submitted that the second application was submitted on 2-12- 2002 while the third application was submitted on 21-4-2004, and the suit was instituted on 31-7- 2004, but it was returned on 7-1-2005, in order to file it in the proper forum in the light of the provisions of the Defamation Act, 2002. He contended that the order in revision of the learned Additional District Judge was dated 2-6-2005 while the notice was given by the appellant on 30-6- 2005 which was well within time.
3. The perusal of the above record clearly shows that the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was promulgated on 1-10-2002 while the first suit was filed on 31-7-2004. It is well-known maxim by now that ignorance of law is no excuse. A person cannot claim condonation of the period if he does not use the mind properly and does not initiate proceedings at the proper forum with due diligence. It cannot be said that the appellant went to the Court of Civil Judge in good faith or that he had used due diligence to ascertain the exact law. The law is to take its own turn and is to be applied strictly for the ends of justice.
4. The two suits of the appellant clearly show that he threw the net more wide, though with less amount of each person at the second phase of the litigation, although he had filed suit against respondent No,1 for an amount of Rs,24,500 probably to save himself from the payment of court- fee. The appellant, by his conduct, has shown that he is trying to engage the respondents in litigation due to his annoyance with them.
5. I do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned order of the learned Addl.
District Judge, Ghazi. Finding no merit in the present regular first appeal, after the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, I dismiss the same in limine.