IN THE COURT OF MR.

SADIQ MASOOD SABIR,

CIVIL JUDGE, MULTAN.

P.S.O. Vs. The Daily Ausaf etc.

RECOVERY SUIT FOR DEFAMATION.

WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit,

against the defendant, which is not maintainable, hence liable

to be dismissed.

2. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the instant suit

hence liable to be dismissed.

3. That the suit is bad for the non-joinder of the parties, hence

not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. That the suit is not maintainable in its present form.

5. That the suit is liable to be dismissed under O-7, R-11 C.P.C.

6. That the defendants published the news items in the national

interest and the news items are never denied by the

substantial material, so there is no question of damages and

suit is not maintainable rather liable to be dismissed.

7. That the intention behind the news items published is not to

impute the reputation of anybody, but contain healthy

criticism, which definitely falls within the preview of

journalistic duties.

8. That the institution of suit is bad under the provisions of

Companies Ordinance, 1984.

9. That the defendants are entitled for the special costs under

section 35-A C.P.C.

ON MERITS: -

1. That the contents of para No. 1 need no reply, but shall be

proved by the plaintiff company during the course of legal

proceedings. However, neither the power of attorney is

executed nor the suit is instituted accordingly and as per

requirements of law.

2. That the para No. 2 is neither correctly narrated nor having a

clear version. The news item was not against the company but

the same was the pointation of a camouflaged corruption of

individuals and was nothing more.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 are correct upto the contents

of legal notice, but at the same time, this legal notice was

replied with a request for the segregation of falsity of the

news published against the corrupt elements and the same is

still awaiting on the part of company/individuals.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 upto the extent of publishing

the news items in the papers of different dates is correct, and,

the remaining part is not correct, because the news items were

not against the company, but were against the specified

individuals.

5. That the contents of para No. 5 are correct upto the extent of

legal notice but the remaining part is incorrect and having no

value in the eyes of law keeping in view of the veracity of

news items.

6. That the contents of para No. 6 are incorrect rather

misconstrued in respect of company. The news items were

published against the individuals not against the company. It

is pertinent to point out that the pointation of corruption and

corrupt elements is a basic duty of a journalist and the fear of

such like action and activities cannot hurdle the same.

7. That the contents of para No. 7 is a piece of advice towards

the defendants, but the plaintiff may forget it that all these

things mentioned in para No. 7 are the farmer and basic

charter and code of journalism.

8. That the contents of para No. 8 are correct upto some extent

because most of the documentary proofs regarding the corrupt

elements/corruption are kept in the files which are lying with

the plaintiff company.

9. That the contents of para No. 9 are not correct rather this

version is going to strengthen the plea of defendants that the

news items published were not against the company, but were

against the individuals. It is ridiculous in the part of company

which is coming forward for the escape of individuals/corrupt

elements. The behaviour of individuals depicts that they do

not want to file any suit in their individual capacity.

10. That the contents of para No. 10 are repetition of para No. 7

and para No. 9, for which in detail reply is given.

11. That contents of para No. 11 are incorrect, however, the

detailed reply is given in the preceding paras.

12. That the contents of para No. 12 are incorrect and it is again

an effort to rescue the individuals on the part of company.

The privatization of any establishment of public/private

sector always depends upon the efficiency and volume of

business, but not on the face value of the workers/officers.

13. That the contents of para No. 13 are incorrect and seem to be

a repetition of para No. 6 for which the detailed reply is

already given.
14. That the contents of para No. 14 are incorrect or even in line

with the plea of defendants but no one mentioned in para

came forward for the legal proceedings.

15. That the contents of para No. 15 are incorrect.

16. That the contents of para No. 16 are not in the knowledge of

the defendants, because no such policy is annexed with the

plaint for the perusal. Same was also not annexed with the

notices served upon the defendants. However, the

discrepancies pin-pointed by the defendants never repled or

substantiated properly.

17. That the contents of para No. 17 are incorrect and self-

explanatory. There are so many causes for this fluctuation

including the international scenario, the decision of OPEC,

international rates of currency, incentives and motivations by

the rival companies and local dealing of the officials of the

company couple with the indoor management and working

atmosphere as well.

18. That the contents of the claim mentioned in para No. 18 is

incorrect and having no value.

19. That the contents of para No. 19 are incorrect. The plaintiff

has no cause of action to file this suit against the defendants.

20. That the contents of para No. 20 are legal and need no reply.

21. That the contents of para No. 21 are legal and need no reply.
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan this
6th day of June, 2003, that all the
contents of the above-titled
written statement are true and
correct to the best of our
knowledge and belief.
Defendants
Dated: _________
Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959
It is therefore prayed that the suit in
hand may please be dismissed with cost.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit & proper may also be awarded
to the defendant in the interest of justice.
Humble Defendants,
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176