ALI BAIG, J.---Through this appeal filed under section 15 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 the appellant/plaintif f has challenged the impugned judgment/decre e dated 31.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the present appellant/plaintif f.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the plaintif f/appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs, 20,00,000/ on account of defamation against the present respondents/defendants in the trial court to the effect that the respondent/defendant No,4 in connivance/collusion with other respondents/d efendants has published false, fabricated news and leveled libelous allegations against the plaintif f/appellant with mala fide intention to humiliate the appellant/plaintif f in the society in Daily News Paper (NEWS MAR T) on 23.6.201 1 in front page of said news paper .
Gist of allegations are as under:-- "News Mart key resident editor ki wazir Aala ko darkhawast, press club or union of journalist key sadoor mustafi" "Donon sadoor saloon sey ohdon per Najaiz Qabiz they. Press club or union of journalist ki membership per khudsakhta pabandi Aayed ker rakhi thi" "Press club Gilgit men honey waley loot mar ki Baqaida audit wa membership foran open ker waya jaye"
The appellant has further alleged that the respondents have also leveled the following libelous allegations:-- a. "Plot na milney per Assembly karwai ka boycott karna sahafti bad- diyanti ha, chand mafat parast towley ne press club per ujaradari qaim ker rakhi ha b. "Aaj kal kay sahafi man mani per uter Aaye hen, Gilgit Press club per logon ki ujaradari ha wohi hakumat sey mara-at mafadat lerahey hen"
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant s/ respondents and filed written statement in trial court wherein they have raised legal objections inter-alia that the plaintif f has got no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants hence, suit is liable to be dismissed, suit is not maintainable in the present form and the suit of the plaintif f/appellant is reject-able under Order VII, Rule 1 1, C.P .C. etc.
4. From the divergent pleadings of parties the learned trial/District Court framed the following issues
1. Whether the defendants have published on 23.06.201 1 false and defamatory news against the plaintif fs in daily newspaper "News Mart" with the intention to degrade the plaintif fs in the society and causing loss to the reputation and good name of the plaintif f in intimation of others? OPP
2. Whether the suit of plaintif f is maintainable in its present form? OPP
3. Whether the news published in newspaper on 23.06.201 1 and 26.06.201 1 was in good faith with bona fide intention to inform the truth to the public at large? OPD
5. After framing of the afore mentioned issues the learned trial court directed the parties to adduce their evidence but both the parties did not produce neither oral or documentary evidence and recorded their statements through their respective attorneys in the trial court.
6. At the conclusion of trial/proceedings the learned trial court after hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the available evidence of parties has dismissed the suit of the present appellant/ plaintif f vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 31.5.2016.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ plaintif f contended that the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned judgment/ decree passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the defendants/ respondents have admitted that they have published the libelous news item in their written statement and learned trial court has wrongly dismissed the suit of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintif f further argued that the impugned judgment/decree is a result of misreading and non-readings of evidence of the parties.
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants defended the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court by contending that the disputed news items were published in Daily News Mart in good faith and not with intention to harm any person by name. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that since the plaintif f has failed to prove his case/claim by adducing reliable evidence in the learned trial court,, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed suit of the appellant/plaintif f.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely with their able assistance.
11. Admittedly the plaintif f/appellant has filed the suit claiming that the respondents/defendants have published fake, fabricated news and A leveled libelous allegations against the plaintif f with mala fide intention to humiliate the plaintif f/appellant in the society in the Daily News Paper (NEWS MAR) on 23.6.201 1, but it is astonishing to observe that the plaintif f/appellant has not annexed the disputed news items which were allegedly published in the aforementioned news paper nor the appellant/ plaintif f has produced any oral or documentary evidence in the trial court to prove/substantiate his claim, hence the appellant/plaintif f has miserab ly failed to prove his case by adducing any reliable oral or documentary evidence.
12. It is well settled principle of law that the plaintif f has to prove his case on its own strength by producing evidence and he has no right to claim that his suit may be decreed on the weakness of opposite party/defendant in the suit. In this connection we are fortified by the reported judgments of superior courts reported in 2004 CLC 1847 = 2001 CLC 946 .
13. Moreover , we have also gone through the alleged defamatory news items mentioned in the plaint. From perusal of alleged defamatory news items disclosed in the plaint by the plaintif f, it transpir es that no any such defamatory words/news items are directly attributed to any person by name which is one of the necessary ingredients constituting defamation, hence the defendants/respondents have not defamed the appellant/plaintif f by publishing defamatory news items in daily "News Mart" against the present appellant/plaintif f.
14. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any substance in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently , the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is maintained. File.