INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- Through the instant civil revision, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.10.2023 ("Impugned Order"), passed by learned Additional District Judge-I (East), Islamabad ("Trial Court"), whereby the preliminary issue with regard to limitation in the suit filed by the respondents was answered in negative and the suit was found to be within time.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant civil revision are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of damages amounting to Rs.50 million based on an alleged defamatory allegation, claiming that the petitioner/defendant had earlier filed a civil suit titled "Jamia Masjid Tauheed e.t.c vs. Basheer Ahmed & Others" for declaration and perpetual injunction on 08.10.2021, accusing respondents/plaintiffs of links with a banned Jihadi organization in paragraph 5 of the plaint, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 11.10.2022. The respondents/plaintiffs being aggrieved of these allegations that allegedly damaged their reputation and caused mental anguish, served a legal notice dated 07.11.2022 to the petitioner/defendant to seeks apology or pay the damages, which was not responded.
3. The petitioner/defendant entered appearance before the learned Trial Court, filed their written statement while raising a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable u/o VII, Rule 11, CPC.
On 16.02.2023, the petitioner/defendant placed proposed issue on record, pointing out that the suit in terms of Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1908 ("Act, 1908") is time barred as the cause of action arose on 18.10.2021, when the alleged defamatory content came to the respondents/plaintiffs' knowledge, and expired on 18.10.2022. On the same day, the issues were including the issue No.7 regarding the limitation, which was answered negative after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties through the Impugned Order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Impugned Order is legally flawed and suffers from serious irregularities, as the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its lawful jurisdiction and did not correctly appreciate the pleadings or apply the relevant legal provisions, particularly Article 24 of the Act, 1908. He further argued that the suit filed by the respondents was time-barred, yet the learned Trial Court ignored this key issue and failed to consider the significance of the legal notice dated 07.11.2022. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court's failure to apply its judicial mind on the principles of settled law resulted in a miscarriage of justice and serious harm to the petitioner's legal rights, therefore, the Impugned Order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents fully supported the Impugned Order and contended that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the record in its true perspective; that the Impugned Order has been passed in accordance with law, and rightly decided.
6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner filed a civil suit titled "Jamia Masjid Tauheed e.t.c vs. Basheer Ahmed & Others" for declaration and perpetual injunction on 08.10.2021, accusing respondents of links with a banned Jihadi organization in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The relevant paragraph 5 of the petitioner's plaint is reproduced as under:- "That it is pertinent to mentioned here that the defendants No.1 & 2 are belong to a banned Jihadi Tanzeem and have threatened the plaintiff for dire consequences".
8. The petitioner's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed due to non- prosecution vide order dated 11.10.2022 and the same was not restored and attained finality. The allegation leveled by the petitioner in the above quoted paragraph resulted into filing of the suit for damages by the respondents against the petitioner. The respondents before filing the suit sent a legal notice dated 07.11.2022 to the petitioner, which was not responded. In the legal notice, the respondents made the following claim:- "You addressee is therefore called upon through this legal notice to pay my clients PKR 50 Million only within a period of 7 days of the receipt of this notice and unconditional and unqualified apology failing which my clients will be will in their rights to institute legal proceedings under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 in civil court and initiate criminal proceedings against your addressee in that event you will be liable for all costs and consequences."
9. The above referred legal notice clearly shows that the respondents sent the legal notice to the petitioner on the premise of damage to their reputation from the defamation/libel due to earlier civil suit by the petitioner titled "Jamia Masjid Tauheed e.t.c vs. Basheer Ahmed & Others", and demanded unconditional apology and damages to the tune of Rs.50 million otherwise to face proceedings under Defamation Ordinance, 2002 be initiated.
10. The respondents filed the suit on 03.12.2022 against the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed, that this Honourable Court may be graciously, please to pass judgment and decree in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant as follows:-
(a) To pass the judgment and decree against the defendant for damaged reputation of the plaintiffs to the tune of Rs. 50 Millions.
(b) To pay litigation charges of malicious prosecution as well as litigation of this suit.
(c) To direct the Defendant to tender an unconditional written apology to the plaintiffs for derogatory remarks against them."
11. There is another aspect of the instant matter, which is reflected from the above referred prayer that the respondents filed the suit seeking multiple reliefs i.e. litigation charges on account of malicious prosecution suffered in the suit filed by the petitioner as well as the litigation cost of this suit. Therefore, it transpires that this is a composite suit involving multiple causes of action subject to different limitation periods, such as Articles 23 and 24 of the Act, 1908, which are reproduced as under:-
12. This Court may observe that the principles of natural justice and due process do not envisage the Court to act as a mere conduit mechanically applying one limitation period to the entire suit, rather, the Court is required to perform an active judicial function and consciously apply the limitation period relevant to each specific cause of action. Where causes of action are distinct and separable, limitation is assessed individually for each claim. The principle is to identify the dominant or primary cause of action and apply the corresponding limitation period. This distinction is critical in composite suits involving multiple claims. Where a suit combines claims for compensation for malicious prosecution (Article 23) and compensation for libel (Article 24), limitation for each claim is to be assessed separately. There is a responsibility upon the Court to exercise its judicial mind on each independent cause of action because the consequence of misapplying limitation periods would result in the potential denial of substantive rights or unjust dismissal of claims.
13. The record clearly shows that the petitioner filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction on 08.10.2021, paragraph 5 of which contained the alleged libel. That suit was dismissed for non- prosecution on 11.10.2022. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of damages on 28.11.2022. This sequence indicates that the respondents' claim for damages is well within time.
14. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality or jurisdiction defect has been found in the Impugned Order. The instant civil revision bears no merits and is, therefore, dismissed.