KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through the instant appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, appellant Preetam, has called in question order dated 03.09.20 18, passed by the learned VIII- Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, whereby he has rejected the plaint of the appellant's Defamation Suit No.46 of 2018 under Order VII, Rule 1 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure [Act-V of 1908] ["the code" ].
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintif f Preetam [ the appellant"] had instituted a suit for defamation and recovery of Rs.50.00,000/- against defendant Madhu Das r the respondent"] in the learned Court of District Judge, Hyderabad. It is averred that the appellant's son earlier Hindu named as Aneel Kumar , now Ahmad Ali and the respondent's daughter earlier Hindu named Avanteeka, now named Mst. Amina Bibi, after having embraced Islam, have contracted marriage according to Sharia. The respondent had lodged FIR No. 34 of 2017, at Police Station New Faujdari, District Shikarpur , for offence under section 365-B, P.P.C. showing the offence of abduction of Avanteeka against the appellant and others. The Police allegedly arrested the appellant and then released him.
The subject FIR was disposed of in class "C" and the respondent also allegedly wrote a letter to his brotheri with false and baseless allegations against the appellant, spreading it in A Social Media, to which, the appellant allegedly sustained loss to his reputation, which underestimated him in the society , hence he filed the subject defamation suit. The learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, to whom the subject suit, was made over, has rejected plaint thereof under Order VII, Rule 1 1 of the Code. Hence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Trial Court without allowing the parties to adduce their evidence has rejected the plaint vide order dated 03.09.2018; that the appellant was booked in the subject FIR, which was disposed of under Class "C" and further the respondent had also written a letter with false and baseless allegations against the appellant to his brotheri , spreading it in Social Media, which has caused loss of reputation to the appellant, but the learned Trial Court while rejecting the plaint has not considered such aspects of the case; and. that the impugned Order is illegal. The learned counsel prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the case may be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision on merits after recording pro and contra evidence.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material brought on the record.
Section 8 of the Ordinance ibid, which is relevant for deciding the instant matter is reproduced here for the sake of convenience: "No action lies unless the plaintif f has within two months after the publication of the defamatory matter has come to his notice or knowledge, given to the defendant, fourteen days notice in writing of his intention to bring an action specifying the defamatory matter complained of".
Plain reading of the above provision of Law envisages that no action would lie unless the plaintif f has given to the defendant, fourteen day's notice in writin g of his intention to bring an action with particulars of defamatory matter complained of and that too within two months of the publication of the defamatory matter or from the date of gaining knowledge thereof. Record reflects that the subject FIR was disposed of under Class "C" vide order dated 20.05.2017, passed by the learned VI-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur and the alleged written complaint to the Panchait [brotheri ] was made by the respondent on 24.04.2017; admittedly , prior to the subject Defamation Suit, the appellant had filed suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,000/= on account of malicious prosecution and damages before the learned Court of Ind Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad on 01.08.2017, as is reflected from the copy of the plaint thereof, filed as annexure-C available at pages-57-72 but that plaint was returned to the appellant under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code for presenting the same before the court of competent Jurisdiction vide order dated 11.08.2017, copy whereof filed as annexure-D is available at pages-73-74; whereafter the appellant filed Defamation Suit No.49 of 2017 on 21.08.2017, as revealed from the copy of the plaint of the said Defamation Suit, filed as annexure-E available at pages-75-88, and whereas the written statement was filed by the respondent on 18.11.2017; the plaint of the said Defamation Suit was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code vide order dated 20.04.2018, passed by the learned VIII-Additional District Judge,- Hyde rabad, a copy whereof filed as annexure-I is available at pages-133-1 38, on the ground that no notice as mandated by the Law as discussed supra , was given by the appellant to the respondent, therefore, the suit was hit by the provisions of section 8 of the Ordinance ibid. Instead of challenging the aforesaid order 20.04.2018, whereby the plaint of Suit No.49 of 2017 was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, the appellant through his Advocate sent Legal Notice to the respondent on 19.05.2018 i.e. after one year of the order dated 20.05.2017, passed by c the learned Judicial Magistrate disposing of the subject FIR under Class "C" and the alleged complaint made by the respondent to the Panchait [brotheri] against the appellant on 24.04.2017. The appellant then filed the subject Defamation Suit No.46 of 2018 on 28.05.2019, which by no stretch of imagination could be termed to be in compliance of section 8 of the Ordinance ibid. In such view of the matter . I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court by rejecting the plaint of the subject 3rd Suit No.46 of 2018 vide impugned order dated 03.09.2018, has not committed any illegality . The learned Advocate for the appellant has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order , passed by the learned Trial Court. And, thus the instant Appeal deserves to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 02.04.2019, whereby the instant appeal was dismissed.