Allowed.
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that the restraining order, dated 8-6-2010 in Civil Suit No,986/2010 filed by the respondent against the appellant is perhaps preventing him (appellant) from doing his job as a responsible Journalist. According to learned counsel, the interpretation of said restraining order is that now he cannot author any news article or for that matter go on Television to air his views, which is contrary to section 5(b) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, which provides that in defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that the matter commented on is fair and in the public interest and is an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact and was published in good faith.
' To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent says that the impugned order is person specific i,e, appellant is Restrained from making any statement/publication against the plaintiff, veracity whereof, he is unable to corroborate and has nothing to do with the appellant's profession in general as a responsible Journalist.
' We have heard both the learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would dispose of this appeal by directing' that the appellant is not restrained from practising his profession as a responsible Journalist provided he remains within the parameters of section 5(b) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, as referred to above.
' It is clarified that we have not at all touched the interim order given in Civil Suit No,986/2010 dated 8-6-2010.