-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................................3

LIST OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................................ 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... 8

ISSUES PRESENTED....................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS......................................................................................... .10

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................... 11

PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

01 Sec. Section

02 Art. Article

03 No. Number

04 SC Supreme Court

05 Hon’ble Honorable

06 Annex Annexure

07 SCMR Supreme Court Monthly Review

08 PLD All Pakistan law Decisions

09 UDHR Universal declaration Human Rights

10 COP Constitution of Pakistan

11 PPC Pakistan Penal Code

12 PLJ Pakistan Law Journal

13 PCrLJ Pakistan Criminal law journal

14 MLD Monthly Law Digest

15 YLR Yearly Law Report

16 SCP Supreme Court of Pakistan

17 AIR All India Reporter

 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

 Pakistani Judgments:

S.NO Name of the Case Citation of the Case

.
01 Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Saleem Muhammad PLD 1996 Lah. 50
02 Syed Mehmood Ali versus Network Television Marketing PLD 2005 Karachi
LTD and another
399
03 Azizullah v. Javed Bajwa 2005 SCMR 1950

04 Dr. Prof. Haroon Ahmed v. Messrs British Airways PLD 2004 Kar. 439
05 Mohsin Abbas versus Air Waves Media PLD 2020 Sindh 400
(Pvt) Ltd and Others

06 Adeeb Javedani v. Yahya Bakhtiar 1995 CLC 1246

07 Meera Shafi and others Versus Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lahore
773
08 Sheikh Muhammad Rashid v. Majid Nizami PLD 2002 SC 514
09 Hassan Razzaqi v. Mst. Mehrun Nisa Meher 1972 PCr.LJ 1175
10 Altaf Gauhar versus Wajid Shamsul 1981 PLD 515
Hasan and another
11 Saiyyid Abdulla Maudoodi versus The PLD 1964 SC 673
Government of West Pakistan
12 Liberty Papers Ltd. and others v. Human Rights PLD 2015 SC 42
Commission of Pakistan

 Books Referred: 1) Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9th Edition, p.
3859 and Ratanlal and Dhirajlal,.

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

2)Restatement (Second) of Torts, §568(1)(1976

3)The Law of Torts, 28th Edition, p. 269 rel

 International Judgments:

S.NO. Name of the Case Citation of the Case

01 Tolley v. J. S Fry & Sons Ltd. 1931 A. C. 333

02 Charlston v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. 1995 (2) A.C. 65
03 Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., 1944 AC 116

04 Aspro Travel Ltd., v. Owners Abroad Group (1995) 4 All E R 728 CA

05 Basir Ul Haq v State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293
06 Taseko Mines Limited v. Western Canada Wilderness 2017 BCCA 431 rel
Committee
07 State of Bihar v Lal Krishna Advani (2003) 8 SCC 361
08 Nevill v Fine Art and General Ins (1897) AC68, p. 72

09 In Re. S.K Sundaram (2001) 2 SCC 171.

10 Perspective Publications v State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 221
11 Basir Ul Haq v State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293
12 D.F.Marion V. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171

 Statues Referred:

S.NO. Statute
01 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
02 Constitution of India
03 Defamation Ordinance,2002
04 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) The plaintiff, Mr. Abdullah Khan, is the proprietor of a well-established restaurant named ‘‘Quetta
Commercial Cafe’’ located on 6th Road Rawalpindi. The restaurant has been operating since 1999
and has garnered a reputation for high-quality food and excellent service.
2) It is asserted to maintain and keep up high-quality food. Food was prepared under the supervision of
specialist cooks in a hygienic environment, and it has been certified by the Punjab Food Authority.
3) On 24 January,2024 plaintiff advertised a video on different TV channels to promote his business
which led to an increase in customer traffic.
4) In March 2024 the media team of a program ‘Sach Janiay’ produced a documentary on the Quetta
cafes located in Rawalpindi. Mr. Asad (defendant no. 2), a reporter for the program Sach Janiay,
prepared and authored the documentary. Timeline News Channel (defendant no.2) aired this
documentary on their channel along with the timeline ‘Quetta Cafe Restaurants ki haqeeqat sab k
samnay’.
5) Defendant no. 2 recorded different video clips from Abdullah Khan’s restaurant. The customers were
also interviewed, who praised the quality of the food. In the documentary, it was tried to show that the
restaurant used cheap quality of oil and their food had a foul smell of oil and ghee.
6) It was commented that people are very innocent, and they do not know what they are eating, and
customers are not aware of the quality of ingredients used. They are playing.
with the health of people for a few bucks and playing with the lives of thousands which are not
traditions of a civilized society. They are spreading poison to the whole society and making people
run around the clinics. At last, it was informed that ghee used in the preparation of food is not seen by
the Ministry of Health and why no action is taken against the plaintiff’s restaurant.
7) On 27 March 2024 the program Sach Janiay aired, at 9:30 pm on Timeline News Channel (defendant
no.1), with highly scandalous and defamatory content directed at Abdullah Khan’s restaurant.
8) The plaintiff also served a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to immediately stop
leveling such defamatory statements against plaintiff and to seek unconditional apology on the same
TV program within 14 days ; the defendants did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff’s legal
notice; and, the documentary not only tarnished the establishment’s goodwill and image but also
caused embarrassment, annoyance, and mental anguish to Abdullah Khan and his regular customers as
well.

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

 The Quetta commercial cafe is located in Rawalpindi hence the honorable court has the jurisdiction to
try the instance suit of recovery of damages under Section 13 of The Defamation Ordinance, 20021.

Which state:

“The District Court shall have jurisdiction to try Cases under this ordinance’’

_______________________________________________________

1Enactedon1stOctober,2002.
 ISSUES PRESENTED

1) Whether the story in the documentary as mentioned in the facts made by program Sach Janiay

broadcast by Timeline News Channel is specifically against Abdullah? If not, then how?

2) Whether by the acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has been gravely injured in his character and

reputation and is entitled to damages by reasons of publication of said documentary.

3) To what extent, ‑if any, is the plaintiff entitled and against which defendant?

4) Whether the impugned broadcast was privileged?

 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1
Yes, the story in the documentary as mentioned in the facts made by program Sach janiay
broadcast by Timeline News Channel is specifically against Abdullah khan.
ISSUE 2
Yes, by the acts of the defendant(s) the plaintiff has been gravely injured in his character and
reputation plaintiff and has caused him a substantial pecuniary loss in business.
The amount of money, claimed in respect of damages, has been anticipated by the plaintiff as

 General damages for causing injury

to the Plaintiff’s reputation = Rs. 2,000,000/-
(from each defendant)

 Special damages in terms of substantial

business loss, suffered by the Plaintiff = Rs. 1,500,000/-
(from each defendant)
 Damages in respect to causing acute
mental agony, distress, and anxiety to
the plaintiff from the Defendant’s part = Rs. 1,500,000/-
(from each defendant)
_________________
TOTAL=Rs.5,000,000/-
(Five Million from each defendant Only)
ISSUE 3
A suit was filed against more than one tortfeasor Defendant No.1 published/telecast the insinuation
authored by defendant No.2. Both the publisher i.e. telecaster and the author are, jointly and severally
liable for the act of defamation.

ISSUE 4
No, the impugned broadcast was not privileged.
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.1

Whether the story in the documentary as mentioned in the facts made by program Sach
Janiay broadcast by Timeline News Channel is specifically against Abdullah?

Yes, the story in the documentary as mentioned in the facts made by program ‘Sach janiay’
broadcast by Timeline News Channel is specifically against Abdullah khan.
DEROGATORY COMMENTS:
In the documentary, after showing images of the plaintiff's shop various dishes, it was commented that
"We were surprised to the limits, when we collected the sample of oil and ghee used in different foods
from different Quetta Cafe restaurants in the same vicinity. When we got the oil and ghee examined from
laboratories, we came to know that they used cheap quality of oil, and their food had the foul smell of oil
and ghee. It was commented that “the people are innocent, and they do not know what they are eating”.
While ending, it was commented that, “people are very innocent, for Savor and taste. The customers may
not be aware of the quality of ingredients used. Playing with the health of the innocent, for the sake of a
few bucks, playing with the lives of thousands, is not a tradition of a civilized society, who are these
people? Spreading poison in the whole society and making people to run around clinics”. At the close of
a documentary, it was commented “Whether the oil and ghee used in the preparation of foods, is not seen
by the officials of Ministry of Health? Why is action not taken against them?

QUALITY OF FOOD:
Plaintiff claims regarding the quality of food depicts that the quality of oil and ghee is best in their food. It
was asserted that to maintain and keep up high quality, food is prepared under the supervision of specialist
cooks in a hygienic environment and it has been certified by the Punjab Food Authority(ANNEX A).
DEFAMATION ACTIONABLE AS LIBEL:
The material telecast was highly defamatory, which has not only tarnished the image but has also damaged
the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's concern and their cafe, in addition caused mental torture to
the plaintiff.
The act of the defendant(s) comes under defamation as libel mentioned in Section 3(3) of Defamation
ordinance,2002.
“Any false written, documentary or visual statement or representation made either by ordinary form or
expression or by electronic or other modern means or devices that amounts to defamation shall be
actionable as libel.’’

As defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, §568(1)(1976),

"libel" refers to the communication of defamatory matter "by written or printed words" or any other
physical embodiment having the potentially harmful qualities of a writing
The defendant No.1, produced and telecast a defamatory documentary, authored by the defendant No.2,
seemingly against all Quetta cafes generally but, it was an innuendo against the plaintiff. Innuendo, in the
context of action for tort of defamation, means oblique, subtle or indirect implication in words or
expression usually reckless; insolent and derogatory ensuing harm, injury and damage to the reputation,
goodwill and estimation of a person, goods or vocation (see also Tolley v. J. S Fry & Sons Ltd., 1931 A.
C. 333 & Charlston v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. (1995 (2) A.C. 65).
Generally, a class or particular section or group of people cannot claim to be defamed as a class, section,
group, or community nor an individual can claim to be defamed by general reference to the class, section,
group or community to which he belonged. Exception to this generality could be claimed, where it is
demonstrated that, the maligning or offensive defamation was directed, or innuendo angled' or obliquely
aimed towards a particular individual, person and or concern or few identifiable individual, persons, goods
or vocation. Once the case is brought within the exception, action for libel or innuendo could be
maintained by affected persons to vindicate the honour, compensate the loss and restore the image
reference can be made to Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.2, , Aspro Travel Ltd., v.
Owners Abroad Group3, Hassan Razzaqi v. Mst. Mehrun Nisa Meher4,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2 1944 AC 116 3(1995) 4 All E R 728 CA 41972 PCr.LJ 1175

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

In the case of Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Saleem Muhammad5, it is stated:
“Defamation is defined as publication of a statement which reflects a person's
reputation and tends to lower him/her in the estimation of right thinking members
of the Society generally or tend to rise in people a strong hatred, contempt
ridicule "tending to shown and avoid"

SPECIFICALLY, AGAINST PLAINTIFF:

It appears that documentary titled as "Sach Janiay" in the garb of general insinuations against the “Quetta
cafes’’, the Plaintiff's concern "QUETTA COMMERCIAL CAFE" was focused in particular. In the
background, images of plaintiff's concern were shown and in the foreground, customers were shown
commenting on Plaintiff's restaurant, an average person with ordinary prudence would be led to believe, as
if the documentary is specifically aimed and insinuating the plaintiff's concern and his cafe.
"Documentary" leaves a detestable, aversive, and damaging impression, as regards the products of the
plaintiff's concern.

____________________________________________________________________________________
5PLD1996Lah.50
 ISSUE NO. 2

Whether by the acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has been gravely injured in his character
and reputation and is entitled to damages by reasons of publication of said documentary?

Prior to promulgation of "Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)" civil action for defamation was
actionable under tort, now it has been made actionable under statute law. (Sections 3, 4 and 9 of
Defamation Ordinance, 2002). Once it is established that the libel has been committed, injury or damage
to the reputation, goodwill is presumed this long-standing principle has now been assimilated in section 4
of the Ordinance LVI, 2002.
“Defamation actionable. — The publication of defamatory matter is an actionable wrong without proof
of special damage to the person defamed and where defamation is proved, damage shall be presumed.”6

BOGUS ALLEGATIONS:
The allegations leveled by Defendant in the documentary are demonstrably libelous, false, malicious,
incorrect, intentionally misleading, callous, wanton, tortuous, and prejudicial, which amount to
defamatory imputation directed towards the plaintiff and falls in the category of libel. Plaintiff and his
regular customers were shocked when they watched a program titled as “Sach Janiay”. It gravely injured
the character and reputation of the plaintiff. and has caused him a substantial pecuniary loss in business.

RIGHT TO REPUTATION:
It is pertinent to elaborate that the reputation of a person is a very important civil right, guaranteed by the
Article 4(2)(a), of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the bogus claims that
the plaintiff use cheap quality of oil and ghee depicted in the documentary has greatly injured the
reputation of the plaintiff and violated the fundamental right of dignity of the plaintiff. The Constitution,
being the Supreme law, defines parameters &expected levels of social behavior between the members of
the society. By the virtue of the aforesaid Article 4(2)(a), the Constitutional obligation, to ascertain the
dignity, respect & reputation of every citizen or any person in the State, is not merely confined to the State
but it is extended upon every person and citizen of the State.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6 Section 4 ,Defamation Ordinance,2002

Thereby, the Defendant’s unlawful action is an unconstitutional and blatant infraction of Article 4 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. For ease of reference, the aforesaid, Article 4 of
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, is reproduced as follows:

Article 4.

(1) To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every
citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.
(2) In particular: -
a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation, or property of any person shall be taken
except in accordance with law;
b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and
c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.
UDHR Art. 1:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

In State of Bihar v Lal Krishna Advani7, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to reputation is
an essential facet of an individual’s right to life. It is an integral and important aspect of the dignity of an
individual. The wrong of defamation is to make a statement that injures the reputation of the person to
whom it refers and ‘exposes him to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or which causes him to be shunned or
avoided or which has a tendency to injure him in his office, profession or calling.’8 Such a statement must
be published for it to qualify as a defamatory statement.9 Reputation of a person would mean the opinion
that others have of him10
DEFAMATION UNDER PPC:
Sec.499 of the PPC states that ‘Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7State of Bihar v Lal Krishna Advani, (2003) 8 SCC 361

8 Nevill v Fine Art and General Ins, (1897) AC 68, p. 72
.9In Re. S.K Sundaram, (2001) 2 SCC 171. 10 Perspective Publications v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 221

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

Though the fifth exception to this section allows individuals to make comments on cases yet such a
privilege is a qualified one.11 Thus such a comment must be confined to the merits of the case and should
not be a mere declamation that brings into contempt and hatred the administration of justice or injures the
character of the individual.12

RIGHT TO DIGNITY:
The concept of dignity of a person is an important principle in the constitution of Pakistan and is
essential for ensuring that all individuals in society are treated with respect. In Pakistan, the
constitution recognizes the dignity of a person as a fundamental right. Specifically, Article 14 of the
Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the inviolability of the dignity of human beings, stating:
“the dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable.”

Defamation is an injury to a man's reputation. The freedom of speech or expression does not authorize one
person to lower another in the esteem of his peers or to expose him to hatred, ridicule or contempt. The
wrong of defamation, which includes both libel and slander, protects reputation while the defences to that
wrong, viz., truth and privilege, protect the freedom of speech. No one has a right to injure reputation of
others with mala fide intention.
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9th Edition, p. 3859 and Ratanlal and
Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 28th Edition, p. 269 rel.

In order to determine whether the words are defamatory they should be given their natural, normal,
ordinary, plain, usual, fair and obvious meaning and be construed in the sense understood by an ordinary
and reasonable person, i.e. someone who is not naturally inclined to attribute the best or worst meaning to
them.
Taseko Mines Limited v. Western Canada Wilderness Committee 2017 BCCA 431 rel.

______________________________________________________________________________
11 Basir Ul Haq v State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293.
12 K I Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law ( 11th Edn, 2012, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa), p. 896
An American decision in D.F.Marion V. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171, reads as follows:
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassail by malicious slander is of ancient origin and is
necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the
Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."

In Liberty Papers Ltd. and others v. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan 13 the august Supreme
Court of Pakistan held:
"Under the provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, reputation of a person
has received the highest protection in Article 4(2)(a). Further under Article 14 the dignity of man and,
subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable right of each and every citizen. The defamation of
any person or citizen through spoken or written words or any other means of communication lowers the
dignity of a man fully guaranteed by the Constitution, thus, not only is it the constitutional obligation of
the State but all the citizens and persons living within the State of Pakistan to respect and show regard to
dignity of every person and citizen of Pakistan otherwise if anyone commits an act of malice by defaming
any person, would be guilty under the Constitution and would cross the red line of prohibition imposed by
the Constitution, attracting serious penal consequences under the law and the person violating the same
has to be dealt with under the law."

ENTITLED TO DAMAGES:
In case of Syed MEHMOOD ALI versus NETWORK TELEVISION MARKETING (PVT.) LTD
and another14 it is held,
“ once the defamation is proved general damages are presumed”
It has been held in the case of Azizullah v. Javed Bajwa reported in 2005 SCMR 1950 that the Court must
determine proper damages keeping in view the nature of the wrong done and loss caused to such person.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13PLD 2015 SC 42
14 P L D 2005 Karachi 399

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

Similarly in the case of Dr. Prof Haroon Ahmed v. Messrs British Airways15 ;
“It has been held that damages are usually considered under two heads viz, general or nonpecuniary loss
or damages i.e. physical injury, pain, and sufferings impaired capacity for the enjoyment of life or lessen
capacity and special or pecuniary damages that are actual incidental and direct expense, capable of
calculation in terms of monetary value may it be on account of medical treatment loss in business profit
earning.”
The amount of money, claimed in respect of damages, has been anticipated by the plaintiff as follows:
 General damages for causing injury

to the Plaintiff’s reputation = Rs. 2,000,000/

(from each defendant)

 Special damages in terms of substantial

business loss, suffered by the Plaintiff = Rs. 1,500,000/-(from each

defendant)
 Damages in respect to causing acute

mental agony, distress, and anxiety to

the plaintiff from the Defendant’s part = Rs. 1,500,000/-(from each

defendant)

_________________

TOTAL=Rs.5,000,000

(FIVE MILLIONS RUPEES ONLY, From each defendant)

_____________________________________________________________________________
15 PLD 2004 Kar. 439,
 ISSUE NO.3

To what extent, ‑if any, is the plaintiff entitled and against which defendant?

LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT NO. 2;

In the documentary the content was highly scandalous and defamatory, which was directed at Abdullah
Khan’s restaurant. Defendant No. 2 prepared and authored the whole documentary and interviewed
customers of plaintiff’s restaurant who praised the quality of food. In the documentary, he shows images
of dishes of the plaintiff’s restaurant in the background and passes harsh comments like ‘playing with the
health of innocent, for the sake of a few bucks’ and ‘spreading poison in the whole society’. Defendant No.
2 misuses his right of freedom of speech. It took Abdullah khan more than twenty-five years to build a
good reputation, but due to the derogatory remarks of the defendant, Abdullah Khan lost his reputation in
society and has to suffer huge lost in business.

In the case of Mohsin Abbas versus Air Waves Media (Pvt) Ltd and Others ,it is held;
“The Fundamental Right of the said defendants to free speech provided by Article 19 of the Constitution of
Pakistan has to be balanced with the plaintiff‟s Fundamental Right to dignity provided by Article 14 of the
Constitution’’

LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT NO.1 :

The defendant no.1 telecasted the defamatory documentary and is equally liable for publishing the
documentary. As before broadcasting the impugned documentary the defendant(s) did not undertake any
due diligence for its verification, nor did they seek the version of the plaintiff, and thus the domentary was
also in breach of the Electronic Media Code of Conduct–2015, in particular clause 22(1) of the said Code.
Subsequently, to the extent of the electronic media, Code 22(1) of The Electronic Media Code of
Conduct6 – 2015, made under section 19(5) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, 16had set a test of due
diligence requiring that:
“Airing of any allegations etc:-
22( 1) Licensee shall not air any allegation against any person or organization unless the
licensee has credible information justifying such allegation and a fair opportunity to defend such
allegation has been provided to the person or organization against whom allegation is being leveled.”

BOTH DEFENDER(S) LIABLE:

Since instant suit was filed against more than one tortfeasor Defendant No.1 published/telecast the
insinuation authored by the I defendant No.2. Both the publisher i.e. telecaster and the author are,
jointly and severally liable for the act of defamation (Adeeb Javedani v. Yahya Bakhtiar 1995 CLC
1246 at page 1253).
Allegedly, the documentary not only tarnished the establishment’s goodwill and image but also caused
embarrassment, annoyance, and mental anguish to Abdullah Khan and his regular customers as well .
Abatement of suit as against one of the tortfeaser will not relieve the other or surviving tortfeaser from the
liability of consequences thereof. Since in the instant case liability of the defunct Defendants Nos.1 and 2
is joint and several, therefore, defendant No.2 who is stated to be the author of the libelous material and
innuendo being joint tortfeasor is equally responsible for the consequences; on account of the contents of
telecast material, the liability squarely falls upon the author the defendant No.2..As held above, once the
defamation is proved general damages are presumed.
In the case of Muhammad Nazeer v. Emperor (AIR 1928 All. 321)
"That an editor should/must be watchful not to publish defamatory attacks upon 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".

In the matter of ALTAF GAUHAR versus WAJID SHAMSUL HASAN AND ANOTHER, it is held:
“ In cases where defamatory or libellous material is published in newspapers,the responsibility of
the editor, printer and publisher is both joint and several.”

_______________________________________________________________________________
16Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-

 ISSUE NO. 4

Whether the impugned broadcast was privileged?

The person accused of libel may defend the action on the plea of fair comment on a matter of public good
or interest, absolute or qualified privilege or freedom of speech but in this case, the defendants cannot take
such pleas as the facts shown in the documentary are untrue.
In MEERA SHAFI and Others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN17 and others it is stated that
“This fundamental right relating to freedom of speech granted by Article 19 is not absolute and
reasonable restrictions can be imposed on it by law. It cannot be abused to defame others.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this view in appeal in Sheikh Muhammad Rashid v.
Majid Nizami18) and ruled: "In the original Article [19 of the Constitution] the word 'defamation' was
available which was substituted by the word 'commission of' vide section 4 of the Constitution (Fourth
Amendment) Act, 1975 (LXXI of 1975). Although the scope of freedom of press has been enlarged after
the omission of the word 'defamation' from Article 19 yet it does not licentiate the press to publish such
material which may harm or cause damage to the reputation, honor and prestige of a person."
It is stated in case of Mohsin Abbas versus Air Waves Media (Pvt) Ltd and Others
“Regards the defense of “qualified privilege”, a privileged occasion is one where the person who makes
the communication has an interest or duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is
made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it, such
reciprocity being essential4. This is called the ‘duty-interest test’ of the defense qualified privilege, and
traditionally, where such test was satisfied, i.e., where the publication of the matter was in the public
interest, then the publication was protected notwithstanding that it was defamatory/untrue.”
The documentary against the plaintiff is not grounded on actual facts. The plaintiff's café is certified by the
Punjab Food Authority, affirming the truth of their claims regarding the quality of the food they use,
including the use of the best oil and ghee. Therefore, the depiction in the documentary suggesting the use
of low-quality oil and ghee is false.
_______________________________________________________________________________
17P L D 2022 Lahore 773 18PLD 2002 SC 514
 PRAYERS

In the above-mentioned circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the following decrees may kindly be
passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the best interest of justice and fair
administration of law

1) Grant damages to the plaintiffs amounting to Rs. 5,000,000 (Five Million Rupees Only), with
the profit at the bank rate per annum till recovery of amount with cost, for the loss and injury
caused by the defendant's defamatory actions.

2) Pass a Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from authoring and/or
publishing any article/news item against the plaintiffs in the channel or otherwise, whatsoever.

3) An order directing the Defendants to issue an unconditional apology, with the same.
prominence as the original defamatory broadcast, on Defendant No. 1 and in a newspaperwith
wide circulation.

4) The Plaintiff also seeks any other Relief to be awarded in his favor as deemed fit and
appropriate by this Hon’ble Court in the greater interest of justice. In this respect, the reliance is
placed on the judgment, reported as PLD 1964 SC 673, stating as follows:
“ Court may award relief required by justice of cause through
such relief has not been prayed for.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL(S) FOR THE RESPONDENT

-SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-