1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. --- These appeals, with leave of the Court, entail the facts, in that, the respondents, namely Mst. Bilqees Bibi and Mst. Nasim Akhtar, held a press conference alleging (inter alia) that the appellants have grabbed their property and are a Kabza Group. Such press conference was covered by the newspaper i,e, Gujranwala Times. The appellants, on account of such allegation, being aggrieved and considering the said statements and the publication thereof, as defamatory brought an action against the said ladies/publishers/staff etc. of the newspaper.
2. While initiating a remedy under Section 9 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance), the appellants claimed therein inter alia the relief of special damages amounting to Rs, 5,00,00,000/- (five crores). Learned Courts, seized of the matter, directed the appellants to pay ad valorem Court-fee i,e, Rs, 15,000/-, for the claim of the damages propounded by them in their petition, which order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants through a Constitution petition, which was dismissed through the impugned judgment. Leave in these cases was granted on 18.6.2009 to consider:-- "The question whether the proceedings under the Defamation Ordinance No, LVI/2002 would fall within the purview of a suit falling with the ambit of the Court-Fees Act, is a matter of first impression. To examine the question, these petitions are allowed and leave granted. The proceedings in the Trial Court may continue but no adverse action shall be taken against the plaintiff on account of non-payment of Court-fee."
3. ' By relying upon a judgment of this Court reported as Raees Ghulam Sarwar through Attorney v.
4. Mansoor Sadiq Zaidi and 4 others (PLD 2008 Karachi 458) learned counsel for the appellants stated, that the appellants had an option to elect out of the two remedies available to them; either to file a civil suit for damages before the Civil Court or to claim special damages under the special law (the Ordinance 2002). It has been argued that as the action has been initiated under the special law, before the special/specific forums, therefore no Court-fee is payable, as the action/remedy of the appellants is not a suit for damages simpliciter calling for the affixation/payment of Court-fee in terms of Section 7(1) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870. It is also argued, that per Section 9 of the Ordinance ibid proceedings initiated by the appellants before the learned District Judge were in the nature of a complaint and upon a complaint no Court-fee is payable. It is further submitted that one of the remedies under Section 9 ibid, is that the appellant can seek apology from the respondents, and for such remedy, the appellant cannot be compelled to pay the Court-fee.
2. Heard. For the purposes of appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is pertinent to refer to some parts/provisions of the Ordinance, such as:--- "2(bb) "Court" means the District Court."
9. "Remedies.---Where defamation shall be proved to have occurred, the Court may pass order directing the defendant to tender an apology, if acceptable to the plaintiff, and publish the same in similar manner and with the same prominence as the defamatory statement made and pay reasonable compensatory damages as general damages with a minimum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and in addition thereto, any special damage incurred that is proved by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of the Court: 10.Code of Civil Procedure and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order to apply.--- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No, V of 1908) and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. No, 10 of 1984) shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the proceedings under this Ordinance.
5. 11.Ordinance not to prejudice action for criminal defamation.---Nothing in this Ordinance shall prejudice any action for criminal libel or slander under any law for the time being in force."
6. ' Before proceeding further, by adverting to Section 11 ibid, it is clear that the Ordinance in no way prejudices or prevents a criminal action which an aggrieved party could initiate under criminal law.
7. It may also be pertinent to mention here that from the reading of the Ordinance as a whole it does not again preclude a person from initiating an action for damages under the general law of the land i,e, under the law of Torts by filing a suit for damages under CPC. The definition of the Court envisages it to be District Court, which otherwise has original civil jurisdiction; Section 10 makes the Civil Procedure Code and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 applicable mutatis mutandis, thus for all intents and purposes the proceedings before the Court primarily are of the civil nature. Per the law (Ordinance 2002) in fact composite civil remedies have been provided which are clearly mentioned in the Section need no elaboration. Though the Section is composite, at the same time it can be split and segregated into two parts: the first is relatable to tendering of apology and statutory damages which the Court can allow, the extent whereof (damages) shall be determined by the Court within the ambit of the section. For this no Court-fee is payable. The second part however starting with the expression "and in addition thereto, any special damage incurred that is proved by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of the Court", is an added right of the party, giving him a choice and option to claim special damages for the special forum or to resort to civil suit.
8. Undoubtedly this remedy available to the person approaching the "Court" is in the nature of a civil suit and the claim shall attract the payment of ad valorem Court-fee under Section 7(1) of the Court-Fees Act. In light of the above, these appeals have no merits and are accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.