IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
Civil Petition No.2580 of 2020. 
(Against the judgment dated 15.9.2020 passed by 
the Islamabad High Court in FAO No. 113 of 2016) 
  
 
Munawar Ahmed Chief Editor Daily 
Sama and another. 
 Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
Versus  
 
  
Muhammad Ashraf and others  
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
: Mr. Bashir Khan, ASC.  
 
For the Respondent-1  : 
 
Mr. Afzal Malik, ASC 
Date of Hearing  
: 05.01.2021  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Sajjad Ali Shah, J.- The petitioners being the Chief 
Editor and the Editor of Daily Sama respectively, seek leave of this 
Court to file an appeal against the judgment of the Islamabad High 
Court whereby the said Court while dismissing their appeal 
affirmed a decree directing them to pay a sum of Rupees fifteen 
million to the respondent as damages under the Defamation 
Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ordinance”).  
2. 
 
Briefly, the petitioners published a news item in the 
newspaper Daily Sama leveling certain derogatory allegations 
against the respondent which gave rise to his filing of suit against 
the petitioners and others under Section 3(2) of “the Ordinance” 
claiming damages of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in order to vindicate his 
CP-2580/2020 
2
honour and esteem. The detail of the damages allegedly suffered by 
the respondent was provided in the plaint to the following effect:- 
“1. 
Injury to the body and soul by the  
tortuous act of defamation.             = 
5 million. 
 
2. 
Injury to the career, reputation,  
credit, to each of the defendant.     =   
5 million. 
 
3. 
Loss to reputation, prestige and  
esteem.                                          =   
5 
million.  
 
 
 
 
Total: 
 
       =      15 million”.  
 
3. 
 
 It appears that the petitioners after having been served, 
despite several opportunities, failed to file their defence by way of 
written statements, consequently, their right to file the defence was 
struck off on 12.1.2015 and ultimately the suit on 16.5.2015 was 
decreed as prayed for. The petitioners instead of challenging the 
judgment by way of appeal, belatedly filed an application under 
Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte 
judgment and decree which application, after hearing, was 
dismissed on 5.10.2016. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal 
against the said order before the Islamabad High Court which was 
dismissed through the impugned judgment.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no 
proper opportunity was provided to the petitioners to file their 
defence and further some of the defendants were not even served 
despite they were proceeded ex parte. Per counsel, even the High 
Court did not pay any heed to the submissions that adjudication 
on merits is the ultimate goal of the administration of justice.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 
respondent contends that petitioners were duly served. They 
CP-2580/2020 
3
engaged their attorney who filed power of attorney on their behalf 
and despite grant of sufficient time, the petitioners failed to file 
their defence leaving no option for the trial Court but to proceed ex 
parte against them. Per counsel, even the decree was never 
challenged as the petitioners after almost 10 months of the passing 
of decree, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which of 
course had to be dismissed on merits as well as being barred by 
time. It was lastly contended that the impugned judgment meets all 
standards of justice and, therefore, needs no interference.  
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective 
parties and have perused the record. The petitioners could not 
make out any case for interference in the impugned judgment on 
account of being ex parte as the record reflects that they miserably 
failed to avail all the opportunities which were provided to them for 
filing of their defence and, therefore, the Courts below were justified 
in striking off their defence and to proceed ex parte in accordance 
with law. However, what has attracted our attention is that the 
Courts below, in a mechanical fashion and without applying their 
judicial mind to assess the quantum of damages in accordance 
with the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff and the 
principles settled by this Court, proceeded to decree the suit as 
prayed for. Consequently, we have asked the learned ASC for the 
respondent to show from the evidence that the respondent has 
suffered any bodily injury for which he has claimed damages in the 
sum of Rs.5 million and likewise to further show from the record as 
to what injury to his career was caused by such defamatory 
statement for which again a further sum of Rs.5 million has been 
CP-2580/2020 
4
claimed. The learned counsel for the respondent was not able to 
demonstrate from the record that the plaintiff has adduced any 
evidence to prove special damages allegedly sustained on account 
of “bodily injury” or “injury to his career”.  
7. 
 
Special damages are defined as the actual but not 
necessarily the result of the injury complained of.  While awarding 
special damages, it is to be kept in mind that the person claiming 
special damages has to prove each item of loss with reference to the 
evidence brought on record. This may also include out-of-pocket 
expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial, 
and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation. 
Reference is made to the cases of Malik Gul Muhammad Awan  v.  
Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 507) and Abdul Majeed Khan v. 
Tawseen Abdul Haleem (2012 PLC(CS) 574 SC). 
8. 
 
As to the submission that it was an ex-parte decree and 
there was no rebuttal denying the claim of the respondent and 
therefore it had to be decreed as prayed. The contention is totally 
misconceived as it has been repeatedly held by this Court that even 
in case where the defendants are declared ex parte, though the 
Courts are empowered to pass ex parte decree, but such 
discretionary power must be exercised judicially. In cases where 
the defendants are declared ex parte, Courts are not supposed to 
only pass ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff by assessing his 
claim in toto, but are saddled with the duty to examine the 
worth/credence of each piece/item of plaintiff’s claim before 
accepting or rejecting it. However, in the instant case the Courts 
have miserably failed to examine that the respondent has totally 
CP-2580/2020 
5
failed to adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in 
support of his claim that he has actually sustained bodily injury or 
any set back to his career, therefore, the hefty special damages 
granted without application of judicial mind could not be 
sustained.  
9. 
 
General damages normally pertain to mental torture 
and agony sustained through derogatory/defamatory statements. 
Since there is no yardstick to gauge such damages in monetary 
terms, therefore, while assessing damages on account of such 
inconvenience, the Courts apply a rule of thumb by exercising its 
inherent jurisdiction for granting general damages on a case to case 
basis.  
10. 
 
In the instant case, the respondent, by producing un-
rebutted documentary as well as oral evidence has fully proved that 
the publication released by the petitioners was defamatory and on 
account of such defamatory publication, the respondent suffered 
mental torture and inconvenience. However, it was not justified for 
the Courts to pass a decree for the amount which the plaintiff 
desired. It is important to note that once it is determined that a 
person has suffered mental shock and injury and is entitled to 
compensation on account of such defamatory statement, then the 
other important and more difficult question which arises is to 
weigh the quantum of damages for such loss caused to him by 
such wrongful act. The burden in such situation, like in all cases, 
is on the shoulder of the plaintiff to prove the magnitude of such 
suffering. But again since such suffering could not be converted or 
gauged in monetary terms and, therefore, the Court has to apply 
CP-2580/2020 
6
rule of thumb. The other aspect which needs to be kept in mind by 
the Courts while awarding general damages on account of mental 
torture/nervous shock is that damages for such suffering are 
purely compensatory to vindicate the honour or esteem of the 
sufferer, therefore such damage should not be exemplary or 
punitive as the sufferer should not be allowed to make profit of his 
reputation.  
11. 
 
 The Court has not given its finding on any of the aspect 
involved in the instant case nor adopted any criteria to gauge the 
damages claimed. In such situation, the Court has failed to 
judicially exercise its discretion while passing the ex parte decree 
and has granted the damages in a mechanical fashion without 
examining the legality or worth of the respondent’s claim, therefore, 
notwithstanding the fact that we find Respondent entitled to an ex 
parte decree but are of the considered view that such decree could 
not be sustained, as passed without application of mind and being 
violative of the basic principles of exercising judicial powers. After 
we had examined this aspect, counsel for the respondent 
interjected and submitted that since it has been established that 
the petitioners had published defamatory statement which at least 
has defamed the respondent in terms of “the Ordinance”, therefore, 
instead of remanding the case to the trial Court to determine the 
damages by applying settled principles of law, the minimum 
amount of general damages as provided under Section 9 of “the 
Ordinance” be awarded with the direction to the petitioner to 
publish an apology as provided under the law. Section 9 of “the 
Ordinance” reads as follows:-  
CP-2580/2020 
7
“9.   Remedies.– Where defamation shall be proved to have 
occurred, the Court may pass order directing the defendant to 
tender an apology, if acceptable to the plaintiff, and publish 
the same in similar manner and with the same prominence as 
the defamatory statement made and pay reasonable 
compensatory damages as general damages with a minimum 
of Rs.50,000/-  (Rupees fifty thousands) [and in addition 
thereto, any special damage incurred that is proved by the 
plaintiff to the satisfaction of the Court[:] 
[Provided that in case of the originator the minimum 
compensatory damages as general damages shall be three 
hundred thousand rupees.]” 
 
 12.  
There is no dispute that the respondent has undeniably 
proved that the defamation has occurred but the Court has not 
independently applied its discretion though by way of rule of thumb 
to ascertain general damages and for this purpose we intended to 
remand the matter but when the respondent is ready to accept the 
minimum bar of general damages as provided under the law then 
no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case, 
therefore, in our opinion the proposal of the learned ASC for the 
respondent is very fair.  
13. 
 
The respondent has proved that the petitioners being 
originators had published an article which of course was 
defamatory 
and 
has 
caused 
inconvenience 
and 
mental 
torture/agony to the respondent and, therefore, the respondent 
under the law is entitled not only to minimum damages in the sum 
of Rs.300,000/- but also an apology in the similar manner and 
with the same prominence as the defamatory statement was 
published in terms of Section 9 of the Ordinance. In the 
circumstances, instead of remanding the matter, we modify the 
CP-2580/2020 
8
decree and award monetary compensation of Rs.300,000/- only to 
the Respondent which shall be recovered jointly and severally from 
the Petitioners. This petition is converted into appeal and is allowed 
partially in the above terms. These are the reasons of our short 
order of even date which reads as follows:- 
“For reasons to be recorded later, this petition is 
converted into appeal and partly allowed. The 
impugned judgments are modified to the extent that 
the 
compensatory 
damages 
awarded 
to 
the 
respondent are reduced to Rs.300,000/- (three lac) 
and publication of apology under Section 9 of the 
Defamation Ordinance, 2002”. 
    
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad 
05.01.2021 
A.Rehman 
Approved For Reporting