JAVED IQBAL, J.- This is a Revision Petition preferred under Section 115 CPC against the judgment/decree dated 293.92 whereby the suit of respondent/plaintiff filed-for recovery of Rs.
24,900/- as damages for defamation was decreed and order dated 23.8.93 whereby the appeal filed by , the .Appellant/defendant was also dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs 24,900/- as damages defamation was filed by the respondent/plaintiff with the averments'that the plaintiff is an Advocate of the High Court and Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan who has held the office of the Attorney General of Pakistan for over 5 years. He was the first Attorney General in Pakistan who was given the rank and status of a Federal Minister. He, as Attorney General.For Pakistan , had the distinction to represent Pakistan in 1972 and 1973 in two cases before the International Court of Justice at Hague,, As Advocate and as Attorney General for Pakistan he has appeared in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the High Courts in numerous important cases and his assistance has been greatly appreciated and his courage, ability and integrity as Advocate admired by the Judges, members of the Bar and Public generally. He . Was elected President of the Baluchistan High Court Bar Association un-opposed in April, 198l.* It is further averred that he was the' Chief Counsel of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhotto in his appeal against the death sentence passed by Lahore High Court, before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is also stated that the appellant/defendant in the Moon Digest published an Article in its April, 1984 issue on the basis of an alleged interview having with Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, a retired Judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan. This Article was aimed at dealiberately and maliciously impugning the integrity character and demolishing the reputation of the respondent/plaintiff as a leading lawyer of Pakistan and as a person of honour and high social status. The said issue of the Moon Digest was widely circulated- and advertisement regarding the article was made in local Quetta newspapers and thus the false and libelous matter received wide publicity. It is further mentioned that the respondent/plaintiffs counsel issued a notice dated 23.4.1984 to Mr. Justice (Rtd) Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain and the appellant/defendant. A categorical dental was made by Mr. Justice Maulvi Muhstaq Hussain, to whom the said article was ascribed but the appellant/defendant refused to tender apology. It is also pointed out that a suit fer recovery of Rs.24,900/- was filed as the appellant/defendant was not capable of paying the appropriate damages.
3. The appellant/defendant filed written statement and claim made in -the plaint was repudiated.
Besides, it was urged emphatically that the respondent/plaintiff was not an Advocate of that higher calibre and reputation as contended and moreso, that his integrity, courage and ability were never admired by the members of Bar and Public generally as claimed. The grievance made by the respondent/plaintiff regarding behaviour of general public and conduct of the members of the bar made before the Lahore High Court when he appeared to defend and validity of the imposition of Mrtial Law was also high lighted with the further submission that the services rendered by the respondent/plaintiff had neither enhanced his prestige nor acknowledged by the Bar and general public. It was also pointed out that the article in question was never published with any sinister motive, but in the interest of public, it was so done and that too in a chaste and temperate language and which was a reproduction of that which had already been published earlier but no action in this regard was taken by The respondent/plaintiff. It is also mentioned that whatever was written in the article was also pointed out by M/S Suleman Taseer, Qazi Fazlullah, Maulana Kausar Niazi, Mr. Ahmed Raza Kausori and Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto himself, and moreso, the Supreme Court of Pakistan too had high lighted the omissions on the part of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar in its reported judgment. It is also opined that the suit for recovery of Rs. 24,900/-was filed in order to save the court fee.
4. The parties lead their evidence on the following issues framed by the learned Civil Judge-Ill, Quetta, on 11.7.1989:-
1. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of F.O.A.? O.P.D.
2. Whether the defendant has caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiff? O.P.P.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed for ? O.P .P.
4. Relief?
5. Let me examin? First the evidence as led by the respondent/plaintiff to substantiate his respective version. Syed Ahmed Mohyyuddin Qaudri Advocate (PW-1) deposed that at the direction of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar he served a notice upon Moulvi Mushtaq Hussain and the appellant/defendant vide registered A.D. (Ex:P/1 and Ex:P/2) and copies whereof produced (ExP/3 and ExP/4). He further deposed in response of the above mentioned notice the counsel for. Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain sent reply but the appellant/defendant did not bother to reply and consequently a Telegram (Ex:P/5) was also sent. He also Khawaja Iqbal Ahmed Advocate, however, replied (Ex:p9) on behalf ofappellant/defendant. He was not subjected to cross examination. All Ahmad Kurd (Pw-2) deposed that he purchased Moon Digest (Ex.P/10) as the article published in it was talk of the town. He was subjected to cross examination, but nothing advantageous could be extracted.
He, however, conceded that he was counsel of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar in this case. He however, denied the suggestion M an unequivocal term that due to his relationship a false statateeBt as being given by him. Mohammad Muzaffar (PW-3) deposed that he was having a Book Stall with the name and style of Ansari Book Stall, where he used to sell other newspapers and Magazins including Moon Digest. He also showed the photo copy of receipt (ExP/11). He was also subjected to cross examination, but nothing beneficial could be extracted from him. He denied the suggestion that no Moon Digest was purchased from him. Ehsan-ul-Haq (PW-4) deposed that he knew Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar for the last 30/35 years. He further .Deposed that he was an eminent Advocate and who defended Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in an excellent manner. He further deposed that he read the interview of Mr. Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, wherein an attempt was made to create an impression that death sentence was awarded due to inefficiency of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar which badly damaged his reputation. He was also subjected to an exhaustive cross examination, wherein he admitted that he was counsel of Mr. Yayha Bakhtiar in an other case arid was also counsel of his daughter in a suit pending adjudication before Family Court. He however, could not mention the page number where the article in question was published. He denied the suggestion that publication of the articie by Adecb Jawedani was in a good faith. He however, expressed his ignorance regarding the comments offered by Sukman Taseer, Fazal Ullah, Maulana Kausar Niazi and Ahmed Raza Qausoori regarding the conduct of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar as an Advocate. Raja Rub Nawaz appeared as Attorney for Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar and deposed that Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar remained Attorney General of Pakistan twice and also elected unopposed President of High Court Bar and is also a renound Jurist and an eminent Advocate. He further deposed that Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar was one of the companion, of Quaid-e-Azam. He further deposed that article was published in order to please the regime of that time. HeIVol xiv **> j*vr*d*ai VYahy% Bakhtiar C.C. 4450*vJ iqbai, J)farther depose4 that publication damaged the reputation of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar not is Pakistan but on international level. He further deposed that Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain denied categorically that he was ever interviewed, fie further deposed that late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had full confidence in Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar and he produced an application (ExP/12) duly signed by Late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and he identified his signatures. He was subjected to cross examination but be stood firm to it. He also mentioned while answering one of the questions that appellant/defendant had tarnished the linage of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar, who is member of the Senate also. He also mentioned during cross examination that Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar remained pnrturbed and disturbed due to the publication of said article. The appellant/defendant appeared before court and got his statement recorded and deposed that he interviewed Mr. Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain in April, 1984 regarding the case of Mr. Zulfiqar Aif Bhutto and published the same in public Interest. He further deposed that he had no intention to disrepute- Mr .Yahya Bakhtiar and moreso, that the article was published in good faith and in temperate language whereas similar substance was published in other news paper is an aggressive manner. He quoted the new items of Daily 'Amroz'. He further deposed that he had great respect for Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar and offered his regrets for publication of the article. He was subjected to cross examination, wherein he conceded that advertisement regarding the said article was made at Quetta, He denied the suggestion that reputation of Mr. Y ahya Bakhtiar was damaged in any manner whatsoever.
6. It is mainly contended os behalf of petitioner by Mr. W-N.Kohii Advocate that the impugned judgements and decrees are based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence on record as the witnesses produced by respondent/plaintiff could net prove any demage to the reputation of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar and moreso, their statements cannot be relied upon being interested witnesses. It is next contended that the statement of Raja Rub Nawaz being Attorney of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar cannot be considered as no power of attorney whatsoever was filled by him. It is also argued with vehemence that none of the witness have quantified the damages without proof of the actual damages as such no decree could have been passed. It is also pointed out that defamation Is a personal grievance and its assessm ent can best be'made by the victim himself and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of statement of the att omey. It is also objected that Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain has not been impleaded as a party, therefore* the suit is bad for mis- joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that the article was published in public interest hence the question of any damage does not arise.
7. The above said position has been controverted strenuously by Mr. Akhtar Zaman Advocate, who urged emphatically that concurrent findings have been given by the courts below as such no interference is called for by this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under section 115 CPC which is for limited purposes. If is farther contended, that the impugned judgement/decrees are free from any legal infirmity or grave irregularity as such the same be kept intact. It is next contended that suit for recovery in the tune Rs.24,900/- was not filed to savethe court fee, but it was so done keeping in view the financial capacity of the respondent/plaintiff. It is also argued with vehemence that independent, un- impeachable, confidence inspiring, worthy of credence, convincing and concrete evidence has been led by the respondent/plaintiff to substantiate his version and needful was done in a successful manner.
8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions as adduced on behalf of the parties in the light of-relevant Provisions of law, available record and pleadings of the parties. I have minutely gone through the article in question and the impugned judgements. The position which emerges after the scrutiny of evidence is as under:-
(a) The article was admittedly published in Moon Digest.
(b) A categorical and dear denial of late Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain that no such interview was ever given.
(c) The publication of said denial in the leading news papers.
(d) The refusal of appellant/defendant to tender un-conditional apology.
(e) The advertisment in Quetta News Papers regarding publication of said article in the Moon Digest.
(f) Admission in respect of publication of the article by the appellant/defendant on the ground of public policy.
The respondent/plaintiff in my view has proved its case because the language employed in the article cannot be considered as temperate, but it was hard, opprisive dcterminal and could cause damage to the reputation and integrity of the respondent/plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not capable enough to offer his comments or criticize the manner in which a complex murder case had been dealt with. To offer any comments in stich a case requires special skill, thereotical and practical legal know-how, initial knowledge and vast experience which was lacking as the appellant/defendant could not be considered as a legal expert, inspire of his experinece in journalism. It is worthy to note that whatever was written by him in the article was in fact based on a "talk" which the appellant/defendant allegedly had with Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, but he could not prove it. It was incumbant upon the appellant/defendant with all fairness to publish the verdict of Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain enabling the general public to know that the article in question was not based on an interview of a justice but that Mr. Adeeb Jawedani was the author of the article and responsible for the critical appraisal of the entire matter. Had this being the position the plea of "fair comments in public interest" could have been considered. In the light of explained circumstances the conduct of the appellant/defendant cannot be termed as fair. 1 have not been able to persuade myself to agree with Mr. W.N. Kohli Advocate, that it was a case of mis- joinder of parties and that Maulvi Mushtaq hussaiti should have been impleaded as a party and moreso, that he should have been appeared in person to make the denial and only thereafter it could have been accepted by the Court. The categorical denial made by Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain in response to notice was sufficient enough and there was no legal or moralMmk Jm?Wiaaj K Yahya Bakbtiar C.C. 447(laved Iqhal, J)justification cither to coruplct his personal appearance or to implead him as a party. The second contentionthat the witnesses produced are not "independent" but "interested" is equally fallacious because no enmity or malafide whatsoever has beets alleged and to be in a similar profession does not mean that the . Statements given on oath are false specially when remained un-shaken during the cross examination. Likewise the third contention is utterly devoid of any substance that suit for recovery of R& 24,900/- was instituted to save the Court-fee. Suffice it to say that no one can be compelled to file a suit for specific amount being the discretional ambit of the person concerned, and no interference is called from any quarter. In-so far as the premier contention that none of the P.Ws bjsve quantified the damages without proof of the actual damages is not convincing because no yard stick can be fixed to measure the "ACTUAL DAMAGES". The paramount consideration in such cases is to see whether the publication contain impniatioh harmful to the reputation of a person or otherwise? The determination of exact amoiint of damages is not possible and as Such is not a mandatory pre-requisite before filing of such suit.
9. The initial owns of proving that the contents of article were true and publication was not made with malafide, but by an iateligent zeal or the public interest was to be discharged by the appellant/defendant, who has failed in doing so. It is well settled by now that it is not a heathier Journalism to make publication of baseless, rumours and concocted stories which may have the effect of seriously inuuring the reputation of others without the least probe regarding its truth. I may point out that any thing which is published against a man and renders him ridiculous or contemptible is certainly nothing but defamation. Even for the sake of arguments if it is admitted that an interview was given by MauJvi Mushtaq Hussain hardly makes any substantial change because the person who publishes the imputation needs not necessarily be the author of the imputation, the person, who publish and the person who makes an imputation are alike guilty (1894 19 Bombay 703-1895- Cr. R: 34).
10. In view of what has' been stated above I am of the view that anattempt appears to have been made to lower down in the estimation of others, the intectual qualities and capabilities of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar as a Advocate. After a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the concurrent findings as given by the Courts below being free from any illegality do not call for any interference. It is high time to check such a glaring instance of baseless alarming sensational and cheep journalism which hardly renders any service to the community but adversely effects the interest of public at large. In the end I may reproduce the word of Meats, C J 5a the case oi Mohammad Nazeer Vs. Emperor (A.I.R. 1928 AH: 321) "THAT AN EDITOR SHOULD MUST BE WATCHFUL NOT TO PUBLISH DEFAMATORY ATTACKS TJPON INDIVIDUAL UNLESS HE FIRST TAKES REASONABLE PAINS TO ASCERTAIN THAT THERE ARE STRONG AND COGENT GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THE INFORMATION, WHICH IS SENT TO HIM, TO BE TRUE:.Resultantiy the Revision Petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.