' AAMER FAROOQ, J.--- Through the instant petition, the Petitioner has assailed order dated 8.6.2013 passed by District Judge West-Islamabad whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C.
Filed by him was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,500.00 Million as damages for alleged defamation against him by the petitioner before the District Judge-West- Islamabad under Defamation Ordinance, 2002. An application was moved by the Petitioner before the trial court under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. For return of the plaint on the ground that since claim of respondent No,1 exceeds Rs,100.00 million, therefore, the High Court has the jurisdictiOn in the matter. The referred application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the District Judge-West-Islamabad, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit filed by respondent No,
1. In this behalf it was submitted that the claim of respondent No,1 in the suit is for sum of Rs,500.00 million and under Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters vests with the District Court; that though District Court is not defined in the Ordinance, 2002, however, in Section 2(4) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 district means the local limit of the jurisdiction of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes local limit of the ordinary principal civil jurisdiction of a high court, therefore, it was contended the suit filed by the respondent No,1 should be tried by this court.
In support of his content learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on unreported order of this court in Civil Suit No,264/2011, PLD 1981 Karachi 210, PLD 2011 Karachi 484, PLD 1961 Karachi 565.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1, inter alia, submitted that under Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, the jurisdiction to try cases for defamation vests with the district court and regardless of the monetary claim the referred court has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the same. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on order passed by this court in case titled Simbrella Private Limited v. Mobilink Cellular Network dated 14.6.2013 as well as order passed by Division Bench of this court in ICA No,130/2012. Learned counsel also placed reliance on case titled Pakistan Herald Publications Private Limited and others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (2012 CLD 453) as well as Khadim Hussain and others v. Gul Hassan Tiwano and others (2013 CLD 981).
5. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,500.00 million against the petitioner and respondent No,2 before the District Judge West-Islamabad under Defamation Ordinance, 2002.
Under Section 13 of the referred Ordinance the trial of cases filed under the same is to be conducted by District Court. For the sake of brevity the referred Section is reproduced below and is as follows:- "The district court shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases under this Ordinance"
' The district court has not been defined in the Ordinance, 2002 ibid, however, under section 3 of the Civil Courts 'Ordinance, 1962 the following classes of Civil Courts have been established:- A. The Court of the District Judge.
B. The Court of the Additional District Judge.
C. The Court of the Civil Judge.
' In this behalf by virtue of Section 4 of 1962 Ordinance for the purpose of the Ordinance, the Government by notification shall divide the Provinces in civil districts and determined the limits of such districts and determine the head quarter of the same. Under section 7 of Civil Court Ordinance, 1962 except as provided in the Ordinance the court of the district judge shall have the jurisdiction in Civil Suit without limit as regards the value.
6. The Petitioner in the application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. Raised the objection with regards the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that since in Islamabad pecuniary jurisdiction in all matter exceeding Rs,100.00 million is with this court, therefore, the claim by respondent No,1 against the Petitioner and respondent No,2 should be adjudicated by this court. Defamation Ordinance, 2002 is a special law and empowers district court to hear cases of defamation regardless of amount of the claim. It is an established principle that special law on. The subject excludes the general law. Under similar circumstances, the Honourable Division Bench of Sindh High Court in case titled Pakistan Herald Publications Private Limited v. Karachi Building Control Authority (2012 CLD 453) held as follows:-- The Defamation Ordinance, 2002 on its reading shows that it is a special law made by Federal Government on the subject of defamation creating special remedies and also provide for specific Court for trial of cases and appeal. It has conferred jurisdiction for trial of cases under the Ordinance on the District Court.
' The Karachi Courts Order, 1956 so also the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 refer to establishment of the Court which, inter alia, provides for the Court of District Judge. The word District Court in itself is not used in both the laws. The Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance in section 7 as it reads today provides for original jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge and further says that subject to this Ordinance or any law for the time being in force the original jurisdiction of Court of District Judge in civil suits and proceedings shall be without limit of the value thereof except in the Karachi Districts where the original jurisdiction in civil suits and proceedings of the value exceeding. Rs,15 million shall be exercised by the High Court.
' The Defamation Ordinance, 2002 specifically confers jurisdiction for trial of cases on District Court.
For its application it is not dependant on the pecuniary limits prescribed by the Ordinance specially when it is read in the context that it is a Federal law and will hold the field on its own without being subordinated or subjected to the latter Ordinance which only is Provincial law. This is also made clear by section 15 of the Ordinance which has conferred jurisdiction on the High Court to hear the appeal under the Ordinance. It does not require that appeal will be heard by more than one member bench of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, in such state of law could very well be heard by one member bench of High Court. It cannot be that a case heard and decided by one member bench of High Court and then appeal against it is also heard by one member bench of High Court. This cannot be the situation that could have been visualized by framer of the Ordinance as in its mind the concept of District Court and High Court were altogether two different courts.
' In such view of the matter, we do not think that jurisdiction with regard to District Court will have to be read as provided in Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 where the High Court has been conferred now the jurisdiction to hear the suits exceeding value of Rs,15 million as a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. The Ordinance has provided District Court as Court of trial of cases under it, it will be the District Court and no other Court including the High Court and it is the appeal against final decision and decree of that Court which will be heard by High Court. We, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order and same is therefore maintained and appeal is dismissed.
Similar view was taken by the Honourable Sindh High Court in case titled Khadim Hussain v. Gul Hassan Tiwano (2013 CLD 981) and held as follows:- I would like to refer here to two reported cases of this Court on the point of exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court in the cases pertaining to defamation under the Ordinance. In the case of Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. And 2 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority through Controller of Buildings 2012 CLD 453, a learned Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, on its reading shows that it is a special law made by the Federal Government on the subject of defamation creating special remedies and also provides for specific court for trial of cases and appeal. It has conferred jurisdiction for trial of cases under the Ordinance to the District Court. It was further held that the Ordinance has provided District Court as the court of trial of cases under it; it will be the District Court and no other court including the High Court; it is the appeal against the final decision and decree of that court which will be heard by the High Court. Similarly, in the case of A. Khalid Ansari v. Mir Shakil ur Rehman, 2011 CLD 1196, it was held by a learned single judge of this Court that section 13 of the Ordinance has created an exception to the rule contained in section 15, C.P.C. To the effect that now suits in respect of defamation shall be instituted in the District Court.
' In support of his submission regarding the overriding effect of the special law over the general law, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and another, PLD 1986 Supreme Court 74, wherein the learned larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that it is well-settled that the law governing procedure generally in respect of a court upon which such special jurisdiction is conferred, is displaced by the special procedure provided by the special enactment conferring a new jurisdiction, and that the ordinary rule of construction is that where the legislature has passed a new statute giving a new remedy, that remedy is the only one which can be pursued.
' In addition to the above authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, I would like to refer to one more authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and one reported Division Bench case of this Court. In the case of Attaullah Khan and others v. Samiullah and others; 2007 SCMR 298, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a settled law that special law excludes the general law. In the case of Shahid Maqbool v. Mst. Ayesha Saleem Khan and 24 others, 2009 CLC 1452, it was held by the learned Division Bench of this Court that it is a settled principle of law that where a special tribunal/court is constituted to hear and decide dispute which come under the relevant statutes, then all other courts shall stand debarred from exercising the powers of the same nature.
' Section 13 of the Ordinance provides that the District Court shall have the jurisdiction to try the cases under the Ordinance. The language used in section 13 is absolutely clear and unambiguous, and the word "shall" used therein is of great significance. The Preamble of the Ordinance reads as "An Ordinance to make provisions in respect of defamation. Whereas it is expedient to make provisions in respect of defamation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". In the case of Fazal Dad v. Col. Rtd. Ghulam Muhammad Malik and others, PLD 2007 SC 571, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "it is a settled law that preamble is always key to interpret the statute". In view of the unambiguous language of section 13 of the Ordinance read with its Preamble, as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of Fazal Dad regarding the importance of the Preamble for interpreting the statute, it is abundantly clear that all cases, in respect of defamation and/or the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto can be tried under the Ordinance only by the District Court, and no other court, including the High Court, shall have the jurisdiction in respect thereof.
The view expressed by me is supported also by the cases of Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd.
(supra) and A. Khalid Ansari (Supra) decided by this Court.
Civil Revision No,200/2013.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case submitted that the matter should be adjudicated by this court and placed reliance on case reported as PLD 2011 Karachi 484 as well as PLD 2006 Karachi 44, however, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel are earlier in time and two judgments referred above since are later in time and one of them 2012 CLD 453 supra is that of the Honourable Division Bench, therefore, hold the field.
8. For the foregoing reasons the instant Civil Revision is without merit and is therefore, dismissed.