' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The appellant through instant appeal has questioned the judgment and decree dated 6-4-2011 of learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar vide which the suit of the appellant was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisions of the special law of Defamation are very much clear on the point, then consideration of general law by the trial Court for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction is not only unlawful but also without jurisdiction. He next contended that the dismissal of suit by the trial Court is yet another illegality as in case of want of jurisdiction, the same should have been returned to the appellant instead of its dismissal.
3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that since the publication of the matter was made in Rawalpindi and the reporter of the same was also resident of the area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court, then Court of Peshawar had got no jurisdiction and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
5.
Perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant filed a suit for damages against the respondent for defamation on account of publication of some defamatory material against the appellant in daily "The News International" in its issue dated 25-11-2010. The appellant feeling himself aggrieved of the same filed a suit for defamation under The Defamation Ordinance, 2002 but the same was dismissed by the trial Court for want of jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for both the parties categorically stated at the Bar that no specific case-law on the point regarding territorial jurisdiction under the Ordinance, 2002 was available except the case of Altaf Gauhar v. Wajid Shamsul Hasan and another (PLD 1981 Kar. 515) which determines the question of jurisdiction under general law of defamation/damages.
7. As far as the question of territorial jurisdiction of the matter in hand is concerned, the trial Court while basing its judgment on the provision of section 19 of C.P.C. Held that respondent being the resident of Rawalpindi and publisher is also in Rawalpindi, so the Court at Peshawar will have no jurisdiction. To our view, the findings of the trial Court are not in accordance with law. The suit of the appellant was filed under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and section 3 of the said Ordinance is very much clear which is reproduced for ready reference.
"3. Defamation.---(1) Any wrongful act or publication or circulation of a false statement or representation made orally or in written or visual from which injures the reputation of a person, tends to lower him in the estimation of others or tends to reduce him to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike, contempt or hatred shall be actionable, as defamation.
(2) Defamation is of two forms, namely:-
(i) Slander; and
(ii) libel.
(4) Any false oral statement or, representation that amounts to defamation shall be actionable as slander.
(3) Any false written, documentary or visual statement or representation made either by ordinary from or expression or by electronic or other modern means or devices that amounts to defamation shall be actionable as libel." (We have under lined the relevant lines)
A look at the same would reveal that it is not only the matter of residence of the defendant but it is the publication of defamatory matter which is an actionable wrong under the Ordinance, 2002 ibid and every wrongful act, publication and its circulation or other such acts referred to in the section of law would provide a cause to the aggrieved person against the wrongdoer and wherever the acts referred take place, the Courts of the area under the Ordinance, 2002 would have the jurisdiction and the aggrieved person will have the cause of action there to file a suit for damages.
This very narration in the section of law has widened its cope of jurisdiction. As far as question of dismissal of suit is concerned, the law on the subject is settled one. When a matter is out of the jurisdiction whether territorial or pecuniary, then the Court cannot pass any order regarding its acceptance or dismissal and in the circumstances, the only way open to the Court is to return the same to be presented before a proper forum. So, the dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction was also against the law on this count too.
7. So, in this view of the matter, we are left with no option but to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order and send back the case to the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Peshawar to decide the matter afresh on merits after recording evidence of both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 8-7-2013.