' This regular second appeal has arisen out of a suit for damages brought by the respondent, Mr. Sarwar Ali Haidri, against the appellant, Nasir Ali, for addressing a defamatory complaint to the Punjab Bar Council. In that complaint it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent was not a law graduate and had also not been enrolled as an Advocate but was practising as such. An inquiry held by the Bar Council, however, revealed that the allegations made in the complaint were incorrect. The respondent, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs, 24,000 as damages for making of a false and libelous complaint by the appellant.
2. The suit was resisted by the petitioner but, after the usual trial, it was decreed by the Civil Judge for a sum of Rs, 10,000. His judgment and decree were challenged by means of an appeal before the District Judge concerned who upheld the findings of the learned civil Judge but reduced the amount of damages to Rs, 5,000. Being not satisfied with the verdict of the learned appellate Court, the appellant has filed this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant did not deny that at the time of making of the complaint in question on 15th April 1980 the appellant was a law graduate and was also enrolled an Advocate.
He, however, contended that the allegations made in the complaint related to the period when the respondent was neither a law graduate nor he had been enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council. In his complaint, however, the appellant speaks in the present tense and not in the past one. This means that according to the appellant at the time of the making of the complaint the respondent was neither holding the law degree nor he was registered as an Advocate. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel that the allegations made in the complaint related to some past period.
4. It was next contended by the learned counsel that there was no publication of the defamatory matter and, therefore, the award of damages by the two Courts below was not in order. The complaint in dispute has not been disowned by the appellant up to this time. The allegation made therein were enquired into by the Bar Council which, undisputedly, consists of more persons than one. In that way the allegations recorded A in the complaint had become known to a large number of persons, and that amounted to the publication of libellous matter embodied in the complaint. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the false and frivolous charges levelled by the petitioner had not gained publicity.
5. Lastly, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the damages allowed to the respondent were excessive. According to him, there was no evidence on the record showing that the respondent had sustained any monetary loss on account of the complaint in question. It can hardly be disputed that as a result of the complaint the respondent had suffered a lot not only professionally but also in terms of general reputation because an Advocate, who is an officer of the Court, occupies a high and honoured place in the society. Thus, by making and publicising the complaint against the respondent the appellant caused a serious injury to the respondent for which he could eminently claim damages without furnishing formal proof of the monetary loss suffered by him, especial! When it is hardly possible to measure such an injury in terms of money. B The amount of damages which are now required to be paid by the appellant is certainly not excessive. It is rather small. I am, therefore, not in favour of any further reduction in the amount of damages.
6. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.