Pakistan Case Law← Search
1991 SCMR 1208

MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another

Citation1991 SCMR 1208
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 717 and 718 of 1986 Civil Revisions
Date1991-08-26
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.---Both these petitions namely Civil Petition No.717 of 1986 and Civil Petition No.718 of 1986 are directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3rd June, 1986 whereby two revisions of the petitioners were dismissed.

2. The facts are quite simple. Muhammad Sharif and Abdul Hamid respondents had filed two suits claiming damages from the petitioners for the reason that while they were offering their prayers in the village mosque, the petitioners had defamed them by announcing that they had become Ahmadis and thus ceased to be Muslims. As a result these respondents were turned out from the mosque and people raised slogans against them that they were Kafirs. Thus, the petitioners were responsible for bringing them disrepute as well as causing them mental torture, as they were staunch Muslims and would never think of adopting any other religion. Each of them claimed Rs.

3. 10,000 as damages. The Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the respondents and awarded damages of Rs. 5,000 to each. The petitioners' appeals before the Additional District Judge failed.

4. Subsequently their revisions were likewise dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petitions.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel that the respondents could not establish through defence evidence that the allegation levelled by the petitioners as against them was incorrect or it led to their disrepute. But the findings of fact on this point have throughout been recorded against the petitioners. Hence no case is made out for interference.

6. As a result both these petitions viz. Civil Petition No.717 of 1986 and Civil Petition No.718 of 1986 are dismissed.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search