Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4936
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: MUHAMMAD ABID SALEEM vs MST. JAFARAN BIBI
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4936. In this matter between MUHAMMAD ABID SALEEM and MST. JAFARAN BIBI, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir) DECISION DATE: 22-01-2026 TAGLINE: Court can take into consideration the change of circumstances and mould relief as was just and proper for meeting the ends of justice yet the grant or refusal of relief is dependent on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each and every case and relief was not to be automatically granted by mere change of circumstances especially when in the given situation the change of circumstances would have no effect on merits of the case. Case for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution was not made out on the basis of evidence available on the record, which even otherwise being beyond pleadings could not be relied upon. CASE DETAILS: Regular First Appeal-Regular First Appeal (Final Decree) 161-24 ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RFA No. 161 of 2024
Muhammad Abid Saleem vs Mst. Jafaran Bibi & 05 others S.No. of Order/ Proceeding Date of order/ proceeding Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary 22.01.2026. M/s. Muhammad Younas Sheikh and Waseem Mumtaz , Advocates for applicant/appellant.
CM No. 205 of 2026 This is an application for placing certain documents on record. Allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CM No.206 of 2026 2. Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. CM stands disposed of. Main Case/RFA No. 161 of 2024 3. The appellant is aggrieved of dismissal of his suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,00,000/ - (Rupees fifty crore only) as damages filed against the respondents for malicious prosecution and ulterior motive through judgment and decree dated 11.01.2024 passed by the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the impugned judgment and decree is against the facts of the case and law on the su bject, therefore, is liable to be set - aside and suit of the appellant merits to be decreed. 5. Heard. Record perused. 6. The appellant, who is an advocate by profession, is aggrieved of dismissal of suit for recovery of damages and seeks setting aside of the said decree with prayer to decree his suit by mainly relying on the fact that he was representing Abdul Sattar, one of the parties (Respondent 2 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 No. 1 therein), as counsel in a petition for partition of property titled „Muhammad Arshad versus Abdul Sattar, etc.‟ before the revenue authorities/Tehsildar and on behalf of said Abdul Sattar , he filed an application for dismissal of partition proceedings, wherein through reply submitted by the other side, certain allegations were personally levelled against appellant to cause damage to his reputation, resulting in filing of titled suit and he has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.5 0,00,00,000/- by stating that t he appellant is a highly qualified Advocate and enjoying good status in th e society whereas Respondents, who were defendants in the suit, are jealous of the appellant and habitually indulge in litigation with people of locality. Respondents in their reply to aforementioned application for dismissal of application for partition of the property titled as 'Muhammad Arshad etc. vs. Abdul Sattar etc' have mentioned in Preliminary objection No.5 the following words:- "متعلقہ پٹواری حلقہ نےغیر قانونی اور بلا اختیارطور پر سائل اور اسکے کو نسل محمد عابد سلیم ایڈوکیٹ خانیوال سے ساز باز اور ملی بھگت کرتے ہوئے اراضی تعدادی 011 کنال کی کھیوٹ نمبر 060 کو از خود کھیوٹ ہائے میں تقسیم کر دیا ہے جس کی بابت انکوائری کی جا کر متعلقہ پٹواری حلقہ ، سائل اور کونسل سائل محمد عابد سلیم ایڈوکیٹ کے خلاف حسب ضابطہ قانونی کاروائی کی جاکر قرار واقعی سزادی جائے"۔ On the basis of the aforementioned objection, it is claimed that respondent/ Defendant No.4 damaged the reputation of the appellant, who suffered mental agony , therefore, he instituted the suit for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution and ulterior motive. The claim of the appellant for Rs.5 0,00,00,000/- as compensation and damages has been bifurcated as under:- i. Damage to personal and professional reputation of petitioner Rs.45,00,00,000/- ii. Physical, mental torture and inconvenience Rs. 4,99,00,000/- iii. Costs of suit including advocates fee Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs. 50,00,00,000/-
3 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 7. On the other hand, respondents/defendants No.1 to 4, 6 & 7 submitted written statement and contested the said suit vehemently, which suit has been dismissed by the trial court by decision of issue No. 3 raising question of its maintainability and the said decision has been called in question through this appeal . For ready reference the issue No. 3 is reproduced below:- „Whether suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form? OPD‟
8. The trial court placed the onus of the aforesaid issue on the defendant s and treated the said issue as the main and pivotal issue and decided the same as preliminary issue in favour of the defendants and dismissed by appellant ’s suit, with the following observations:- ‘Perusal of record shows that appellant instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crore only) as damages on the basis of malicious prosecution and ulterior motive. On the other hand, defendants No.1 to 4, 6 & 7 contested the said suit by filing their written statement and prayed for its dismissal. The appellant has alleged in his plaint that in application for partition titled as “Muhammad Arsh ad etc. Vs. Abdul Sattar etc”. defendants have mentioned defamatory remarks in above titled application and Muhammad Saleem, respondent/defendant No.4 damaged the reputation of the appellant in the open court. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4, 6 & 7 submitted certified copies of proceedings litigation and stated that said application is pending before the Board of Revenue and has not been decided up till now. Perusal of record shows that the above said application titled as 'Muhammad Arshad etc. Vs. A bdul Sattar etc.' is pending before the Member Board of Revenue. In these circumstances, suit of the appellant is premature and is not maintainable in its present form because application between the parties has not been decided till now and is pending in the Board of Revenue. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff’.
9. Perusal of record shows that appellant based has claim for recovery of Rs.50,00,00,000/ - (Rupees fifty 4 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 crore only) as damages for malicious pros ecution and ulterior motive on the basis of a statement in preliminary objection No. 5 of reply to application for dismissal of partition proceedings filed by the appellant on behalf of one, Abdul Sattar, who was a respondent in the partition proceedings before the revenue authorities and the same matter was still pending before the Board of Revenue, Punjab and ha d not yet been finalized on the date of filing of instant suit . Although the appellant claims that Muhammad Saleem, defendant No.4 (now respondent No. 4 ), damaged the reputation of the appellant in the open court by making such statement in his reply, yet he has not mentioned how the said preliminary objection raised before the revenue authorities has tarnished his personal and profession reputation , especially when the matter was still pending with the Board of Revenue and proceedings had not yet been finalized on the date when the suit for damages had been filed , hence the learned trial court ha d rightly observed through the impugned judgment and d ecree that the suit was premature a t the said stage and it is settled that premature suits cannot proceed during the time the cause of action had not arisen and finalized into a right to file suit. 10. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant states that during the pendency of the instant appeal, the revision petition titled „Muhammad Arshad etc. versus Abdul Sattar, etc ‟ has been decide d by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 23.05.2025, therefore due to the change of circumstances, the observation of the trial court that the suit was premature has lost its efficacy, hence , prays that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside an d the matter may be remanded to the trial court for decision afresh. We are cognizant of the fact that a premature suit , during the pendency of the said suit may due to change of circumstances give rise to cause of action as laid down in 5 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 Abdur Razaq versus Abdul Hamid (1979 SCMR 534 ) and Abdullah Bhai and others versus Ahmad Din (PLD 1964 SC 106 ) and we are also cognizant of the fact that this Court can take into consideration the change of circumstances and mould relief as was just and proper for meeting t he ends of justice in view of principles laid down in various judgments including Martin Dow Marker Ltd., Quetta and others versus Asadullah Khan and others (2020 SCMR 2147 ) and Javed Khalique versus Muhammad Irfan (2008 SCMR 28), yet, the grant or refusal of relief is dependent on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each and every case and relief was not to be automatically granted by mere change o f circumstances especially when in the given situation the change of circumstances would have no effect on merits of the case. 11. In the present case, although the appellant in his plaint has based his claim on malicious prosecution, yet the details of the same and ingredients for entitlement to damages on the basis of the same are absent from the plaint and even the evidence led by him is also silent to that effect. Needless to mention here that even otherwise evidence beyond pleadings, if available, cannot be read as supporting evidence for decision of the case, hence, no useful purpose would be served by making reference to evidence at this stage. Reference is made to Muhammad Arif Tarar and another versus Matloob Ahmad Warraich and others (PLD 2025 SC 691 ), Muhammad Aslam and others versus Muhammad Anwar (2023 SCMR 1 371) and Muhammad Naeem Khan and another Versus Muqadas Khan (Decd) through L.Rs. and another (PLD 2022 SC 99). 12. Another important aspect of the matter in the instant case is that the appellant had filed suit for damages on the basis of his claim that respondents had made defamatory remarks against him in writing without 6 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 mentioning that how the said defamatory remarks amount to malicious prosecution and at the most same could be treated as a suit for damages and compensation for defamation, which accord ing to the Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was required to be filed before the District Judge and not ordinarily before the Civil Court, which law despite the fact that by virtue of its Section 10 making Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, mutatis mutandis applicable to proceedings, being a special law provides for its own definitions, remedies, privileges, defences, limitations and procedures, hence the suit filed before the civil court under the general law may not proceed able on the said account. Needless, to mention that the stance taken by the learned counsel representing the appellant that the appellant has claimed damages on account of other heads also such as malicious prosecution , physical and mental torture, inconvenience and cost including the fee of the counsel as well would not be of any help to him for the reason that as already noted above the appellant has not mentioned in the plaint that how and when he was prosecuted and the said prosecution was malicious by mentioning the details of malicious prosecution. Moreover, the suffering of physical and mental torture and inconvenience on the basis of malicious prosecution was not established on the record. Hence, the case for damages on the basis of malicious prosecu tion in the given circumstances of the case was not made out. Moreover, the afore-referred ancillary relief claimed in the suit by the appellant was dependent on his proving defamation by the respondents against him and the same would bring the said suit t o the jurisdiction of District Judge and not within the jurisdiction of civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the main cause of action and relief claimed by the appellant were based on damage to reputation and would be 7 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 governed by Defamation Ordinance, 2002. It is important to note here that ordinarily a special law on the subject excludes the general law, reference may be made to Attaullah Khan and others versus Samiullah and others (2007 SCMR 298), Ismaeel versus The State (2010 SCMR 27) and Capt. (Retd.) Nayyar Islam versus Judge, Accountability Court No.III and others (2012 SCMR 669). In view thereof the jurisdiction in the instant case was prima facie vested in the District Court and not the Civil Court, hence the suit may not be proceedable before the Civil Court on the said account as well. 13. In these circumstances, despite the fact that suit of the appellant was premature and was not maintainable in its present form because proceedings from which the same had arisen had not been finally decided till the filing of suit, the decision of the said revision petition i.e. proceeding by the Board of Revenue, would not make the suit of the appellant as maintainable before the Civil Court at this stage especially when the same h ad already been decided on question of maintainability . Moreover, the question as to whether the plaint of the suit ought to be returned for filing before the District Judge, would not be of any help to the appellant as the evidence previously recorded at the premature stage would not be sufficient for decision of the matter and due to change of circumstances fresh evidence may be required to be recorded in the case where the appellant may have to produce copy of the decision passed by the Board of Revenue subsequent to the decision of the Civil Court and during the pendency of this appeal, where both the parties would have chance to present their case and get the evidence recorded, which may also be cross - examined by the other side, hence , no useful purpose would be served by returning the plaint at this stage. 14. It is important to note here that this Court being the appellate Court is competent to pass a decision in the 8 RFA No. 161 of 2024 Dated 22.01.2026 matter on grounds and reasons different from the grounds decided and reasons given by the court of original jurisdiction to reach same or different conclusion as the entire matter opens before the appellate court for decision. 15. For what has been discussed above, the appellant has not been able to point out any misreading or non - reading of record and illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree for this Court to warrant interference in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court in the matter, which findings are upheld. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(SYED AHSAN RAZA KAZMI) (MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR) JUDGE JUDGE
Naveed/Zeeshan Khan *
APPROVED FOR REPORTING