Pso (written Statement)
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Pso (written Statement) as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,096
- Pages: 6
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 selfexplanatory. 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: -
It is therefore prayed that the suit in
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.
hand may please be dismissed with cost.
Defendants
Humble Defendants,
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may also be awarded to the defendant in the interest of justice.
Dated: _________
Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
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 selfexplanatory. 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: -
It is therefore prayed that the suit in
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.
hand may please be dismissed with cost.
Defendants
Humble Defendants,
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper may also be awarded to the defendant in the interest of justice.
Dated: _________
Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Related Documents
Pso (written Statement)
November 2019 7
Nausheen (written Statement)
November 2019 2
Pso Ias
November 2019 9
Pso Project
May 2020 11
