1/07/2025

Suit for damages for malicious prosecution

Suit for damages for malicious prosecution.

Must read judgement

2024 C L C 1190

[Sindh]

Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed, J

Syed FEROZE ALI----Plaintiff

Versus

Messrs AURORA BROADCASTING SERVICE (PVT.) LTD. and 7 others----Defendants

Suit No.2320 of 2016, decided on 2nd April 2024.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---

----Sched. 1, Arts. 23, 24 & 25---Suit for damages for malicious prosecution, filing of---Limitation---Plaintiff claimed damages against various sets of defendants including four broadcasting companies running their respective television channels on the assertion that he was wrongly arrested in pursuance of FIR at the behest of the defendant (citizen /complainant), and subsequently he (plaintiff) was acquitted by the Court---Validity---From a perusal of the plaint, it was apparent that the plaintiff had conflated a claim for malicious prosecution against the defendant/complainant with a claim for defamation, which encompassed the defendants (broadcasting companies)---Both said torts are separate from one another, having distinct elements and presenting unique causes of action with different periods of limitation, as prescribed under Arts. 23, 24 & 25 of Sched. 1 to the Limitation Act, 1908---Said Articles stipulate that the period of limitation for every description of suit (for compensation for malicious prosecution, for compensation for libel or for compensation for slander) is one year---In the present case, admittedly, a legal notice was sent to the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff after about two months of the news complained of being broadcast by the defendants / (broadcasting companies / television channels), which (notice) was replied to after two months or so---Whereas, the suit was filed by the plaintiff after more than 3 years and 3 months from the date of broadcast---Thus, claim advanced by the plaintiff against such defendants was time barred, thus it was unnecessary to dwell further on whether the claims could have been intertwined as claimed---Suit was dismissed on point of limitation, in circumstances.

Fahad Mushafay for Plaintiff.

Tariq A. Memon for Defendants Nos.1 to 4.

Farhat Gul Malik for Defendant No.8.

جھوٹے مقدمہ اور بدنامی کے دعوے کو آپس میں ملا دیا، حالانکہ یہ دونوں علیحدہ نوعیت کے دعوے ہیں جن کی مدتیں مختلف ہیں۔

اس کیس کے چند اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. محدود مدت: 1908

کے "لمیٹیشن ایکٹ" کے تحت بدنامی اور جھوٹے مقدمہ کے دعوے مختلف مدتوں میں محدود ہیں۔ ہر دعویٰ کے لئے ایک سال کی مدت مخصوص ہے۔

2. الگ نوعیت کے دعوے:

مدعی نے جھوٹے مقدمہ (مالی شس پروسی کی شکایت) اور بدنامی کے دعوے کو آپس میں ملا دیا، حالانکہ یہ دونوں علیحدہ نوعیت کے دعوے ہیں جن کی مدتیں مختلف ہیں۔

3. دعویٰ کی تاخیر:

مدعی نے نشریات کے دو ماہ بعد قانونی نوٹس بھیجا، اور تین سال تین ماہ بعد دعویٰ دائر کیا، جو کہ "محدود مدت" کے تحت مسترد کر دیا گیا۔

4. دعویٰ کا مسترد ہونا:

چونکہ مدعی نے وقت کی حد کے اندر دعویٰ دائر نہیں کیا، اس لئے عدالت نے دعویٰ کو مسترد کر دیا۔

یہ فیصلہ یہ بتاتا ہے کہ قانون کے تحت دعویٰ دائر کرنے کی ایک خاص مدت مقرر ہے اور اگر اس مدت میں دعویٰ نہ کیا جائے تو وہ مسترد کر دیا جاتا ہے۔

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.