CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. --- This regular first appeal has been directed against, the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. Syed Sibtul Hassan (respondent) filed a suit for damages against the appellant on the ground that the respondent belongs to a respectable family of area. His father-in-law was retired I.G. (Prison), his brother was retired as It. General, his second brother was retired as Chief Secretary, one of his brother was a lawyer and his fourth brother is 'highly reputed businessman, while the respondent is M.B.B.S. Who has qualified in number of foreign degrees and is a Professor of Medicine. The respondent is also a income tax payer. He never indulged in transaction with the defendant, but the appellant/defendant No. 2 who posed himself as Chief Director has maliciously issued three consecutive notices of demand for payment of Rs. 24,49,200/- on account of alleged debt balance.
The respondent/plaintiff alleged that when he received notice, some of his colleagues and patients were present in the clinic. The respondent was humiliated in the eyes of his colleagues and patients and he felt degraded in the society due to the said notices. The respondent further alleged that these notices were issued to blackmail and humiliate him, therefore, he be awarded a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of damages.
3. The appellant also filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,49,200/- against the respondent on the ground that above-said amount is outstanding against the respondent/plaintiff.
4. Both the patiies contested the suits filed against themselves by filing writing statement. The suits were consolidated and following consolidated issues were framed:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is mala fide? OPD
(3) Whether the contention of the plaintiff narrated in the plaint is correct? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 24,49,200/- as prayed for in the suit titled "Trust Securities and Brokerage Ltd. v. Dr. Syed Sibitul-Husnain? OPD
(6) Whether the suit has not been filed by a proper and authorized person as objected in the suit titled "Trust Securities and Brokerage Ltd. v. Dr. Syed Sibtul Husnain," if so its effect? OPP
(7) Whether the proceedings in the second suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of C.P.C. In view of preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement filed in suit titled "Trust Securities and Brokerage Ltd. v. Dr. Syed Sibitual Husnain" OPP
(8) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party in view of preliminary projection raised in the written statement in the suit titled "Trust Securities & Brokerage Ltd. v. Dr. Syed Sibitul Husnain"? OPP
(9) Relief.
5. After recording of oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, learned Civil Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment and decree dated 17.2.2003 gave the following findings:--- "As per decision for the foregoing issues suit No. 1 is decreed in favour of Dr. Syed Sibitul Husnain for.
1/2 relief of the suit i.e. Awarding Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lad only) as damages, against the defendant while the second suit filed by the defendant is dismissed."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court is against the law and facts and patently contrary to the settled principles governing the law of tortiest liability. The learned Trial Court has grossly mis-read the evidence brought forth by the parties. Learned Trial Court awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- without any application of reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the maintainability of civil suit on the ground that since the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, has been promulgated, therefore, the suit was not proceedable before a Civil Court. Therefore, appeal be accepted, impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit of respondent/plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this R.F.A. And has contended that all the three letters Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were sent with mala fide intention just to blackmail and humiliate the respondent. The respondent received all the above-said three letters while he was sitting amongst his colleagues and patients and respondent suffered a great mental torture and mental agony. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that it is the Court who determines and assess the amount of damages suffered by mental torture and mental agony. The respondent belongs to ,a respectable Syed family of the country who has been humiliated.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. So far the question of maintainability of suit for damages is concerned, admittedly the suit was filed in the year 1995 while the Law of Defamation namely Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was enforced in 2002 which had no retrospective effect and it is settled principle of law that if during the pendency of proceedings the existing law has repealed or amended, the matter will be decided under the provision of repealed law as if law has not repealed. Therefore, the objection of learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. That coming to the question of evidence, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are demand notices which were issued by the Executive Director of the company with a request to make payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 24,49,200/-. The language of Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 is neither threatening nor there is any aspect of humiliation. Further these notices were served upon the respondent through letter. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is misconceived that the substance of notices here-in- above mentioned has humiliated the respondent and has also caused mental agony because it could not be presumed that when respondent received these notices on various dates, he read over these notices loudly publically. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the notices of demand which were sent to the respondent on various dates. The plaint or the evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff is silent that when respondent received these notices and whether at all the occasions his relatives and patients were sitting around. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that, the respondent sent a written reply of these notices but such document was not exhibited in the evidence of plaintiff/respondent. Therefore, without cross-examination, the respondent cannot derive any benefit out of this written reply.
11. The perusal of plaint further reveals that the plaintiff/respondent has not mentioned the detail of claim of damages without which the suit was not proceedable. Evidence produced by the respondent do not in any manner establish that notices of demand Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are defamatory who has caused great mental torture and mental agony to the respondent. The learned Trial Court has grossly mis-read the evidence brought forth by the parties the law produced by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the instant case. The evidence produced by the respondent is not enough rather a number of law provide provision of notice of demand in the Statute. A notice is simply a reminder to do an act within the stipulated period. Every citizen has an inalienable right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law and in particular no action detrimental to law shall be taken. In the instant case plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his case for grant of damages on account of his reputation having been damaged in general public by the defendant/appellant. None of the ingredients constituting defamation was available in the present case either in the plaint or in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were mere notices of demand which were otherwise never published widely or were circulated in the newspaper 'so no question of defamation arises. Plaintiff/respondent had not been able to substantiate his case for grant of damages on account of his reputation having been damaged in general public by the' defendant or suffered mental torture..
12. As a result of above discussion, this appeal is accepted, impugned judgment and decree dated 17.2.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, is set aside and the suit of respondent/plaintiff is dismissed. /suit dismissed.