1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this 1st Appeal filed under section 96 C.P.C., the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 8-4-2010 passed by learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South whereby he rejected the plaint in Civil Suit No,36 of 2008 filed by the appellant for recovery of damages/compensation.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit against respondents Nos.1 and 2 stating therein that he is a retired naval officer from Pakistan Navy and a practicing lawyer of High Court. In the year 2001 he got married his daughter with respondent No,2. Thereafter on the objection raised by his daughter on the bad character and illicit relations of respondent No,2 with other girls, he gave merciless beatings to her and finally turned her out from the house as such she took shelter in the appellant's house. Thereafter the respondent started defaming the appellant and his daughter along with his family and intentionally and deliberately made false publications against the appellant and his daughter in different forums. The respondents have also moved several false applications to different officers of Pakistan Navy, Sindh Bar Council and Karachi Bar Association with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention just to disgrace, humiliate and insult the appellant before the relevant communities and succeeded to damage the family life and honour of the appellant before the public at large, friends relatives, neighbours and inhabitants of the vicinity where the appellant resides with his family through the above said act and by initiating proceedings. The said applications moved by the respondents were dismissed. Due to the above said acts of the defendants, the appellant is mentally tortured and is disgraced and insulted before the relevant communities and received injury which cannot be measured in monetary terms but for the time being he claims compensation. The appellant sent legal notices to the respondents to provide the damages/compensation and to pay for the time being a sum of Rs,29,65,500 but the respondents paid no attention to the said legal notices and demand of the appellant/plaintiff, hence cause of action accrued to him to file the suit for recovery of damages/ compensation to the tune of Rs,29,65,500.
3. ' Upon service of notice the respondents appeared in court and filed written statement along with an application under Order VII Rule .11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint stating therein that the suit is barred under section 12 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002; that no proper court fees is affixed and the suit is filed without having any cause of action against the respondents.
4. ' Notice of application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Was issued to the appellant who filed counter affidavit to the application and prayed for its dismissal. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties and considering the law on the point, rejected the plaint vide order dated 8-4-2010, hence this appeal.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial court has erred in law and on facts while rejecting the plaint; that the learned trial court has wrongly held that no cause of action has accrued to the appellant to file the suit against the respondents; that by the acts committed by the respondents reputation of the appellant and his family has been badly affected in the society particularly amongst their relatives and friends; that the learned trial court failed to consider that the false and concocted applications moved to different authorities were dismissed, hence they committed act of malicious prosecution. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. He relied upon the case-law reported in 1981 CLC 118,PLD 1979 Karachi 315 and PLD 1976 Lahore 1548.
6. ' Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, argued that that no cause of action had accrued to file the suit as such the plaint was rightly rejected; that the appellant is habitual litigant and previously he has filed several proceedings including suits for recovery of damages/ compensation and most of the proceedings ended in favour of the respondents. He further contended that besides having no cause of action, the suit filed by the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata. According to him the trial court has rightly rejected the plaint by impugned order which requires no interference. He relied upon the decisions reported in 2012 SCMR 366, 2002 SCMR 338, 2007 CLC Karachi 941, PLD 1995 SC 472, 2007 CLC (Peshawar) 1174 and PLD 1990 SC 28. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. From the perusal of the record it reveals that there is matrimonial dispute between the parties. The appellant had filed suit for recovery of damages/compensation on the ground that his reputation as well as that of his family members was badly affected in the society particularly amongst their relatives and friends due to false and -concocted applications moved to different authorities. It may be observed that merely seeking remedy for enforcement of one's legal right does not fall within the ambit of defamation. The word "defamation" has been defined in section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, which is reproduced as under:-- "3. Defamation.---(1) Any wrongful act of publication or circulation of a false statement or representation made orally or in writing or visual form 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."
8. In the instant case the respondents had moved applications to certain authorities for the protection of their right as, according to them. The appellant by using illegal means and tactics was causing harm and damage to them. Apparently no false statement was got published or circulated in any newspaper or article by the respondents which, in any way, injured the reputation of the appellant or lowered him in the estimation of others. Merely moving applications to authorities for redressal of one's grievances or protection of one's legal rights cannot be C termed as "defamation. In the case reported as Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed v. Mst.Shamim Hashmi (2007 CLC 941) it was held by this Court as under:-- "Prima facie, the application is made to a person and authority for protection of the respondent's own interest and it is highly doubtful whether the, same could amount to defamation."
9. Previously the appellant had filed Suit No,37 of 2008 for recovery of damages/compensation wherein plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. First Appeal No,14 of 2010 preferred by the appellant against rejection of plaint was also dismissed by this Court on 31-5-2010. Prior to this Suit No,21 of 2009 was filed by the appellant against the respondents seeking the same reliefs viz. Recovery of damages/compensation. In that case also pliant was rejected and subsequently 1st Appeal No,24 was also dismissed by this court vide order dated 13-4-2010. Likewise another suit for the same purpose i,e, recovery of damages/compensation was filed by the appellant against the respondents. In that suit too plaint was rejected by learned 1st Civil Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 5-4-2010 and the appeal challenging the said order being Civil Appeal No,138 of 2010 was also dismissed by VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South vide Judgment dated 25-9-2010.
10. Besides above, appellant filed following suits against the respondents almost on similar facts and grounds and in all the suits the prayer made by the appellant was for "recovery of damages/ compensation on account of defamation:--
(i) Suit No,103 of 2008
(ii) Suit No,889 of 2008
(iii) Suit No,967 of 2006
(iv) Suit No,1140 of 2006
(v) Suit No,18 of 2008 ' Apart from above suits, about 19 more cases were filed either by the appellant or his daughter against the present respondents. From the conduct of the appellant it appears that he is habitual litigant and has been dragging the respondents in different proceedings particularly for recovery of damages/compensation just in order to tease and agonize the respondents. In the circumstances, unless some strict action is taken\, there will be no end to such litigations.
11. ' Needless to emphasize that a Court of Law has to do justice between the parties and is not supposed to discharge its functions in an arithmetical or technical manner. It is also well settled that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. In the case reported in 1993 CLC 1158 it was held that Courts have bounden duties by law to discourage dishonest litigation and would take suitable measures so that dishonest litigant is denied relief. In 1995 CLC 78 it was held that a frivolous and baseless litigation not only wastes precious time of Court but also drags public into Courts where they have to suffer for years together. Ends of justice demand that special costs should be awarded against litigant responsible for frivolous and baseless litigation and in favour of party who is dragged into Court on account of frivolous and baseless litigation initiated.
12. ' Keeping in view the conduct of the appellant, the trial court should have imposed compensatory costs upon the appellant as provided under section 35A, C.P.C. Which this court, being appellant court, is not competent to do.
13. ' For the foregoing reasons, this First Appeal is dismissed in limine.