ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----This appeal under section 96, C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2015 ("impugned order") passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV Quetta ("trial court") whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit bearing No.4/2015 before the trial court for defamation and damages to the tune of Rs.120,00,000/- and punishment for circulation of false statement and representation against the respondents with the following prayer: "It is therefore respectfully prayed that a decree in favour of plaintiff against the defendants may kindly be passed directing the defendants jointly and severally to make payment of Rs.120,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty Lakhs) to plaintiff as damages for circulating false statement and representation in general masses, with further prayer to punish the defendants for their illegal, unwarranted and unjustified acts, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded in the circumstances of the case is also solicited.
The suit was contested by respondents being defendants wherein they filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The said application was contested by the appellant by means of filing rejoinder, whereby after hearing the arguments from both the parties, the application filed by respondents under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., was accepted vide impugned order dated 22nd September 2015 passed by the trial court and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. Whereafter the instant appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and have perused the material available on record. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel and to ascertain whether the plaint was liable to be rejected or not, the contents of the plaint and the averments, the assertions and allegations made therein were carefully examined by us.
4. It is well settled that for deciding the question of rejection of the plaint, only the plaint and its accompaniments can be examined. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that all the allegations made therein relate only to the alleged defamation, personal insecurity and damages and loss caused to the reputation of the appellant but no estimation and clear calculation has been given by the appellant that how and which act of the defendant, caused financial loss, mental agony and defamation to the appellant which is not clear by the appellant in his plaint/suit and the report submitted by the police officials before the competent court of law, which does not come within the definition of defamation and the appellant did not disclose in his plaint that on which words or action of the official respondents he received mental agony and defamation. There was no decision of the court in respect of the said report submitted by the police officials. No date or month has been mentioned by the appellant in his plaint that where and when the defendants/respondents caused financial loss to him and who are the persons before whom his reputation was disrepute and damaged, and the appellant also did not 'clear in his plaint that what words stated in the said report were derogatory and defamatory and just stated that the allegation leveled against him in the said reports are bald allegations against him by the respondents which were not enough to assess/estimate that there was any derogatory word which disreputed him in public at large or to his friends and relatives. Only a general and the vague statement has been made in the plaint that legal rights, reputation and name of the plaintiff have been prejudiced that too because of a defamatory report made by the respondents against him.
5. Under Rule 2 of Order VI, C.P.C., every pleading shall contain a statement of the material facts in a concise form on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be; and under Rule 4 of Order VI, C.P.C., in all cases in which particulars may be necessary, such particulars with dates and items if necessary shall be stated in the pleadings. In our humble view, the appellant/plaintiff has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Rules 2 and 4 ibid in order to justify or even plead its case for damages on account of the alleged defamation. We have come to the conclusion that the facts averred and the allegations made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action.
6. The suit is also barred by section 3 read with sections 8 and 12 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. It is also a pre-requisite to initiate an action under the ibid Ordinance that the plaintiff shall within two months after the publication of defamatory matter has come to his notice or knowledge, shall give fourteen days notice in writing of his action to bring an action of his intention and in the absence thereof, no action lies. In view of the above clear cut provisions of the ibid Ordinance, if the appellant's suit is allowed to proceed further, it would be a glaring violation of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance. But no date of criminal revision petition allegedly filed by the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Quetta has been mentioned, however, the civil suit was filed by the appellant against respondent No.4 and others on 01.07.2013, and legal notices was given to the SHO of Police Station Airport. Road Quetta on 27.06.2014 with a delay of more than eleven months.
7. Admittedly, a period of limitation for filing of suit for damages on account of defamation has been prescribed in Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 which is six months after the publication of the defamatory material/matter. Defamation Ordinance 2002 is a special law which has prescribed limitation for filing suit for defamation and Limitation Act does not apply in the present case.
8. In the instant matter; the civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction No.50/2013 was filed in the month of July 2013 and on the basis of said suit litigation between the parties in respect of erection of gates was started, and the report was submitted in different courts by the official respondents, and the appellant claimed defamation on the basis of said reports. Even otherwise the appellant did not disclose any date, month and year it his suit as to when the cause of action accrued to him and on the basis of documents available on record, it transpires that factually the litigation started between the parties in the year 2013, when the appellant filed the suit for mandatory injunction, whereas the present suit was filed on 22.09.2014 with a delay of more than one year after submission of the report by official respondents wherein allegedly bald allegation was made against the appellant, hence the suit filed by the appellant was hopelessiy time-barred, and the appellant has also failed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay.
9. The provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act are mandatory in nature that every suit instituted after the period of limitation shall subject to the provisions of Sections 4 and 25 of the Limitation.
Act, be dismissed although limitation hits not been set up as a defence. If, from the statement of the plaintiff, the suit appears to be barred by limitation, the plaint shall have to be also rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In Raja Ali Shan v. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others 2007 SCMR 741 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that it is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint if, on a perusal thereof, it appears that the Suit is incompetent; and, the Court is not only empowered but also under an obligation to reject the plaint, even without any application from a party, if the same is hit by any of the clauses mentioned under Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. In Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Latif and others, PLD 2008 Supreme Court 371, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C. is primarily to save the parties from rigours of frivolous litigation at the very inception of the proceedings, and if the Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and documents available, comes to the conclusion that even if all the allegations made in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief claimed, the Court would be justified in rejecting the plaint in the exercise of powers available under Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C.
In view of the above discussion, after evaluating the record, we have arrived to the conclusion that the impugned judgment of the trial court has rightly been passed and the court has correctly exercised jurisdiction vested in it under the law. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out.
Therefore, this appeal merits no consideration and stands dismissed accordingly.