Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance 2002, Order VII Rule 10 CPC—Defamation—Damages— Jurisdiction of Civil Court— Plaint return of – scope— Civil Court accepted application under O.VII Rule 10 CPC and returned the plaint—Contention of Plaintiff was that it was option of the aggrieved person to avail remedy by filing suit under section 9 of CPC or under Defamation Ordinance 2002—Validity—Civil court was court of ultimate jurisdiction—Neither there was any repealing clause nor ouster of jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit filed before in with regard to damages on account of defamation—If in respect of same dispute/litigation general law and special law were in field, special law would prevail subject to condition that special law contained provisions of ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts— aggrieved person therefore, had option either to opt for redressal against defamatory action before court of general jurisdiction i.e civil court or under the special law—jurisdiction of civil court covered all kinds of civil litigation on the strength and force of section 9 CPC. Plaintiff had availed the option of the civil court but his plaint was returned while misinterpreting the law—impugned order was not sustainable in circumstances which was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Section 497, 498, 87, 88 Cr. P.C …. Bail refusal of—absconsion of accused could not be refused only on the ground of absconsion—it was yet to be decided while keeping in view the facts, circumstances and merits of the case—absconder, though would lose some normal rights of bail but over all circumstanes had to be seen wihile deciding bail matter— Police and Trial court was to take the steps mentioned in section 87, 88 Cr.P.C to procure the attendance of accused and complete proceedings— If accused would become fugitive from law, it was obligatory on the trail court o initiate the proceedings under section 87, 88 Cr.P.C unless said action was taken accused could not be declared an absconder— Bail of accused could not be refused merely on the ground of absconsion, particailly when the process provided in the criminal Procedure Code 1898 for absconder had not been completed..
Protective Bail… Fundamental right— scope— access to competent court is a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution—refusal to grant protective bail tantamount to denial of right to access to justice, which is fundamental to and an integral part of rule of law.
Advocate and Pleader— Scope— Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself—- If one wants to represent his/her client as advocate then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client) as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as advocate and has to clothe with attorney/authorized agent.
Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause
Parties are bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel
in ase of any negligence on party of the counsel, parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible.
Negligence on the party of advocate, has a binding effect on his client— any negligence on the party of the advocate, was binding upon party which had engaged the advocate— if pary would engage a counsel who was lacking sense of responsibility to the court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side.