Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

LAW OF DAMAGES IN PAKISTAN

In the case of Nasir Ahmad Sheikh Vs. SLICP, 1990 MLD 2261) with reference being
actionable, tort is types:(a) Tort is actionable perse:
Defendant is liable merely because he does particular act, even though the plaintiff has suffered
not the slightest harm. For example trespassing on another's land.
(b) Torts which are actionable only when actual damage is proved:
Defendant is liable only if, in consequence of this act, damage is inflicted on the plaintiff. For
example slander is not actionable without proof of damage.
(c) WRONG WHICH ARE NOT TORTS:
These are not torts : (i) Wrongs exclusively criminal for example dacoity, murder, forgery,
(ii) Breaches of contracts
(iii) Brach of trust.
An act which, prima facie, appears to be innocent may become tortuous, if it invades the legal
right of another person. A familiar instance is the erection on one's own land of anything which
obstructs the light to a neighbour's house. It is, no doubt, lawful to erect what on pleases on one's
own land; but if by twenty years' enjoyment, the neighbour has acquired the legal right to
unobstructed stantially obstructs it is an invasion of the right, and so not only does damage, but is
unlawful and injurious.
Now, what is legal right? It has been defined, by AUSTIN, (Vol II P.386) as a 'faculty' which
resides in a determinate party or parties by virtue of a given law, and which avails against a party
(or parties or answers to a duty lying on a party or parties) other than the party or parties in
whom it resides. Rights available against the world at large are very numerous. They are subdivided into private rights and public rights.
Private rights include al rights which belong to a particular person to the exclusion of the world
at large. These rights are:

(1) Rights of Reputation (2) Rights of bodily safety and freedom: (3) Rights of property; or in
other words, rights relative to the mind, body, and the estate; and, if the general word 'estate' is
substituted for 'property', these three rights will be found to embrace all the personal rights that
are known to the law".
To every right there corresponds an obligation or duty. If the right is legal, so is the obligation; if
the right is contingent, imaginary, or moral, so is the obligation. A right in its main aspect
consists in doing something, or receiving an accepting something. So an obligation consists in
performing some act or in refraining form performing an act. A servitude of passage over a field
appears as right of walking or driving over it by the owner of the dominant tenement. The duty of
the servient owner is to refrain from putting obstacles. An easement of light appears as a right on
the part of the dominant owner to interdict the erection of buildings on the servient tenement, or
to remove them when erected. Duty is to abstain from erecting them. The duty with which the
law of torts is concerned is the duty to abstain from willful injury, to respect the property of
others, and to use due diligence to avoid causing harm to others.
Liability for a tort arises, therefore, when the wrongful act complained of amounts either to an
infringement of a legal private right or a breach or violation of a legal duty.
(ii) Damage: "Damage" means harm or loss suffered or presumed to be suffered by a person as a
result of some wrongful act of another. The sum of money awarded by Court of compensate
"damage" is called "damages".
From the point of view of presumption of damage, rights are classified into (1) absolute and (2)
qualified. When are absolute right is violated the law conclusively presumes damage although
the person wronged may have suffered no pecuniary loss whatsoever. The damage so presumed
is called legal damage. Violation of absolute right is, therefore, actionable per se, i.e. without
proof of any damage. In case of qualified rights, there is no presumption of legal damage and the
violation of such rights is actionable only on proof of actual or special damage. In other words,
in case of an absolute rights, the injury or wrong i.e. the tortious action, is complete the moment
the rights is violated irrespective of whether it is accompanied by any actual damage, whereas in
case of a qualified right, the injury or wrong is not complete unless the violation of the right
results in actual or special damage.
The real significance or legal damage is illustrated by tow maxims namely injuria sine damno
and damnum sine (or absque) injuria.
By damnum is meant damage in the substantial sense of money, loss of comfort, service, hearth,
or the like. By injuria is meant a tortious act; it need not be willful and malicious; for though it
be accidental, if it be tortious, an action will lie. Any unauthorized interference, however trivial,

with some absolute right conferred by law on a person, is an injury, e.g. the right of excluding
others from one's house or garden.
(1)
IF A WILFUL WRONG IS DONE TO A PERSON BY A PUBLIC FUNCTIONARY AND IN
CONSEQUENCE TO SUCH WRONG, THAT PERSON HAS SUFFERED MENTAL
TORTURE AND AGONY OR PHYSICAL INJURY OR FINANCIAL LOSS, SUCH PERSON
IS ENTITLED TO BE REASONABLY COMPENSATED BY WAY OF DAMAGES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
2005 SCMR 1950
(a) Damages----Act of public functionaries--Recovery of damages--Principle--Public functionaries must act
and discharge their duty quite fairly and in accordance with law--If a wilful wrong is done to a
person by a public functionary and in consequence to such wrong, that person has suffered
mental torture and agony or physical injury or financial loss, such person is entitled to be
reasonably compensated by way of damages in accordance with law--Court must determine
proper damages keeping in view the nature of wrong done and loss caused to such person.
2003 SC MR 1734
---S.73--Damages--Suit for recovery of damages--Plaintiffs' claim was that on defendants' failure
to provide air-conditioned railway coaches, wherein they had reserved seats, they had to travel
on the relevant date under protest by ordinary coach, thus, faced mental torture in the month of
July under great heat and temperature--Courts below had determined question of fact that
plaintiff had suffered mental torture on account of conduct and behaviour of defendants.
PLD 2002 Supreme Court 723
---Suit for damages--Plaintiff, a Government servant, for almost five months was made to face
hardship due to unreasonable, .unjustified and sadistic attitude of the District Accounts Officer
by not passing his pay bills against the Rules--Plaintiff brought a suit for damages for Rs.
10,00,000 which was decreed to the extent of Rs. 50,000 by the First Appellate Court as well as
the High Court--Validity--Documentary evidence on record was more than sufficient to prove the
high-handedness of the judgment-debtor who in his capacity as District Accounts Officer should
have refrained from being adamant when policy letter on the subject was brought to his notice
and he had no authority to raise objection challenging the very authority of the competent
officer--Two Courts below having rightly arrived at the conclusion about the quantum of
damages which was a question of fact. Supreme Court, in circumstances, declined interference

and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court--Supreme
Court observed that the Government officials dealing with the rights of the people and other
Government officials were not supposed to have a negative and sadistic attitude merely to satisfy
their false egos--Supreme Court deprecated, the conduct of the judgment-debtor on account of
which a Government servant drawing small salary was forced to face monetary loss as well as
mental torture--Civic sense of the aggrieved civil servant who did not feel contented upon the
sanction of the bill and initiated to ask for damages was appreciated by the Supreme Court with
the remarks that it was healthy sign to make others realise the consequences of their omissions to
perform an act which they were legally as well as morally bound to perform.
2004 YLR 999
Disconnection of telephone without notice--Suit for damages filed by licensee/subscriber against
Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation was decreed by Trial Court and upheld by the
Appellate Court--Validity--Corporation had not placed on record any document showing that
such disconnection was after notice to the plaintiff--Courts below had given concurrent finings of
fact that Corporation had disconnected the telephone of plaintiff without any notice--Order of
disconnection was in violation of judgment of Supreme Court--Civil Court had jurisdiction to
take cognizance under S. 9, C. P. C. --Courts below had rightly awarded meagre damages to
plaintiff--High Court dismissed revision petition.
Damages--Public functionaries taking law in their own hands and not proceeding in terms of
law--Awarding damages to aggrieved person is the need of day--Such process can only save the
nation and people of Pakistan from destruction--if the Law of tort is established in the country,
public functionaries and other authorities would run the country smoothly.
2005 YLR 2520
Malicious tort--Suit for damages--Vicarious liability--Malfeasance--Misfeasance--Joint
tortfeasors--Rule of thumb--Appreciation of evidence--Plaintiff filed suit for damages alleging
that he filed application for electricity connection in 1987 and defendants issued demand notice
in 1988 which was paid--Meter was not installed according to demand notice--Plaintiff filed
application before Federal Ombudsman who directed the defendants to install the meter
mentioned in the demand notice--Defendants obeyed the order in 1991--Plaintiff filed suit for
damages which was concurrently dismissed--Validity--Defendant's acts of malfeasance and
misfeasance, caused agony to the plaintiff--Defendants had taken false pleas--Plaintiff had made
specific and unambiguous complaint-- Employer being fully responsible and liable for the
tortious acts of its employees, tortfeasors were jointly and severally liable and all of them, each
or any of them could be sued--Judgments and decrees of both the Courts below were set aside-Quantum of damages were assessed by application of thumb rule and suit was decreed in the sum
of Rs.10, 000 in circumstances.

(2)
NO YARDSTICK EXISTED TO MEASURE OR ASSESS ACTUAL QUANTUM OF
DAMAGES IN RESPECT OF MENTAL TORTURE SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF
2004 CLC 223
No yardstick existed to measure or assess actual quantum of damages in respect of mental torture
sustained by plaintiff while facing agonies of a frivolous litigation against her--In order to prove
the expenditure incurred on such litigation, a party could place on record details of such
expenditure, but in the present case no specific evidence was available on that point--Even if
plaintiff failed to prove actual quantum of damages, her suit was not to be dismissed on that
ground as Court itself was competent in circumstances to ascertain quantum of damages-Keeping in view the facts and circumstances which had given rise to the present suit, particularly
the fact that plaintiff who was a Pardanashin lady belonging to a respectable family, was dragged
by defendant' and she had to face the agony of such frivolous litigation for a number of years
before various Courts in order to vindicate and safeguard her right of property, family prestige
and reputation, Court concluded that ends of justice would meet if suit of plaintiff be decreed and
she be awarded an amount of Rs. 10,00,000 as damages to be paid by defendant to her-- Suit was
decreed accordingly.
2007 CLD 376
Unlawful conversion--Suit for damages--Measure of damages--Pledge of book-entry securities-Unlawful sate of pledged shares from the plaintiff s account by Stock Exchange and Central
Depository Company acting against the law and in breach of the duty of care owed by it to the
plaintiff-Such circumstances could legitimately be factored into the measure of damages-Principles. In IBL V. Coussens [1991] 2 All ER 133 which is a case decided by the Court of
appeal in England. Of the three learned judges on the Bench, two have given separate reasons for
the Court's decision. Both have relied on the dictum of Brandon LJ in the case of Godshrnidt &
Co. Ltd. V. Western Transport Ltd. where he said: "-- I cannot see why there should be any
universally applicable rule for assessing damages for wrongful detention of goods, whether it be
the rule contended for by the plaintiffs or any other rule. Damages in tort are awarded by of
monetary compensation for a loss or losses which a plaintiff has actually sustained, and the
measure of damages awarded on this basis may vary infinitely according to the individual
circumstances of any particular case."
PLD 2008 Karachi 558

Statement on oath of plaintiff had gone unchallenged and remained un-rebutted--Allegations in


constitutional petition filed by defendant were defamatory in nature and had been levelled to
lower reputation of plaintiff in estimation of others and could be treated as malicious
False and malicious allegations had caused loss of reputation, mental torture and financial losses
to plaintiff--Court was itself competent to ascertain question of damages keeping in view the
circumstances of the case--High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation to
plaintiff for malicious prosecution--Suit was decreed accordingly.
Plaintiff had been defamed on account of issuance of such legal notice and publication of
summons of Banking Court in newspapers-Allegations levelled against plaintiff in recover suit
by Bank were serious in nature also containing threat to initiate criminal proceedings against
him--Such allegations had lowered reputation of plaintiff in estimation of others and could be
treated as malicious--Plaintiff had suffered immense legal injury for contesting false and
malicious previous suit--Plaintiff was entitled to damages claimed by him in plaint--Suit was
decreed in circumstances.
PLD 1957 (W.P)Lah. 284
Damages--suit for--could not be dismissed solely on the ground that exact amount of damages
not prove.
PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 2002
A Court itself is competent in circumstances, to ascertain quantum of damages.
In the reported case of Muhammad Sharif v. Nawab Din PLD 1957 W.P. Lah. 283 a Learned
Single Bench was held as under: . If we are to access damages only if the exact amount is proved, no damages can
ever be decreed. Damages have so many times to be awarded by the rule of thumb but the fact
that the exact amount is not determinable can be no reason for dismissal of a suit .."
The other judgment with regard to the assessment of damages for mental torture, nervous shock
and injuries of like nature arising out of breach of duties or a wrongful negligent act of defendant
was reported as Suf Muhammad Ishaque v. The Metropolitan Corporation Lahore PLD 1996 SC
737 it was held as under: There can be no yardstick or definite principle for assessing damages in such cases.
The damages are meant to compensate a party who suffers an inquiry. It may be bodily injury
loss of reputation, business and also mental shock and suffering ."

Regarding the question of damages, the Court is itself competent to ascertain the question of
damages keeping in view the circumstances of the case as held in the reported case of Pakistan
Industrial Development Corporation v. Aziz Qureshi PLD 1965 (W.P) Karachi 202.
It was held by the Balochistan High Court in a case titled "Haji Salman Ali v. The Province of
Balochistan and others" PLD 1994 Quetta 13, that according to law of Tort, compensation by
way of damages, is generally categorized as special and general damages.
As the special damages are concerned, these are required to be proved item-wise to the extent of
the damages sustained by the claimant and the second kind of category pertains to the general
damages as measured by applying "rule of thumb" and the Court has discretion to calculate the
damages according to the circumstances of the case. General damages are normally awarded
where the plaintiff has suffered mental torture, agony etc. I would like to reproduce the relevant
portion of the aforesaid report PLD 1994 Quetta 13 (relevant page 18) which reads as under:-"According to the law of Tort, compensation by way of damages is generally categorized as
Special and General Damages. As far as former category is concerned it requires to be proved
item-wise to the extent of the damages allegedly sustained by the claimant and later category of
damages is measured by applying the "rule of thumb" and the Court seized with the matter has
discretion to calculate the damages in view of the given circumstances of the case. It is to be
noted that General damages are claimed normally in the matters where, on account of injurious
acts of the defendants, plaintiff has suffered agony, mental torture, defamation etc. Since in the
case in hand, appellant is claiming the damages on account of specific losses allegedly sustained
by him, due to the cancellation of the contract work by the Department, therefore, it was a legal
obligation upon him to prove each item separately. "
2006 CLC 440
Art. 14--Defamation--Suit for damages and injunction--Assessment of fair compensation-Factors to be kept in view--Discretion of Court-- Scope--Held, usually it was difficult to assess
fair compensation and in those circumstances it was the discretion of the Judge who might, on
the facts of the case, determine the amount to be awarded to a person who suffered such a
damage--Other factor was that conscience of the Court should be satisfied that the damage
awarded, would, if not completely, satisfactorily compensate the aggrieved party--Article 14 of
the Constitution provided that dignity of man was inviolable and it was legitimate right of
plaintiff to defend his good name and the defendant had no right to defame him--Where the
evidence available on record showed that the defendant had caused defamation, mental agony
and physical discomfort to the plaintiff and defamed him in his business circle, by damaging the
good name of the plaintiff the defendant exposed himself to the consequences--Plaintiff having
proved that the defendant had defamed him in the family and in his business circle, he was liable
to compensate the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to general damages and relief of

permanent injunction to the extent that the defendant had no right to damage the reputation of the
plaintiff in public in general and in the circle of plaintiffs friends and relations in particular-Relief that defendant may be restrained from claiming anything in the shape and kind could not
be granted and the defendant had every right to recover legal dues if he could prove the same,
before a competent legal forum.
2008 MLD 12
----Suit for--Award of damages by Court--Principles.
The damages can be granted by the Court keeping in view the circumstances 'and merits of each
case--While granting damages, the Court has to satisfy itself that the damages awarded if not
completely satisfactory does compensate the plaintiff.
Suit for--General damages, award of--Criteria--Amount of damages assessed by Court must not
appear to be punitive or exemplary-- Principles.
There is no hard and fast rule for grant of general damages and there is also no yardstick to
measure the damages caused to a person and then to determine the compensation--Amount
assessed must not appear to be punitive in nature or exemplary
2003 YLR 136
It is true that loss arising out of injury to reputation of a person cannot be compensated in terms
of money and other non-pecuniary losses may not be accurately calculated in terms of coins, but
for this reason alone, Courts do not decline to grant compensation and still the Courts have
formulated certain parameters and devised principles for evaluation of assessment of such
general damages. Ordinarily in such cases just, fair and reasonable compensation is assessed and
awarded to victim. There is no yardstick or definite principle for assessing damages in such cases
and it becomes difficult to assess a fair compensation. In these circumstances, it is the discretion
of Court, who may on facts of each case and considering how far society would deem it to be a
fair sum, determine the amount to be awarded to a person, who has suffered such a damage. The
general damages are those, which law will imply in every violation of a legal rights. They need
not be proved by strict evidence as they arise by inference of law, even though no actual
pecuniary loss has been or can be shown. The vital canon followed by judicial mind in such
cases is that the conscience of Court should be satisfied that damages awarded would, if not
completely, satisfactorily compensate aggrieved party. However, adequate care should be taken
in this regard while dilating on the quantum of awards. Courts should be vigilant to see that
claim is not fanciful or remote, the award should never rise to be reflective of lavish generosity
and must also obviously not dwindle down to be air indicator of abstemious parsimony, but

Courts should give aggrieved party what it consider in all the circumstances a fait and reasonable
compensation for his loss.
2009 CLD 665
There is no hard and fast rule to grant general damages and there is also no yardstick to measure
the same. The rule of award of general damages is that in the case of defamation, the conscience
of Court should be satisfied that the damages awarded would, not completely and satisfactorily
compensate the aggrieved party; and that the amount assessed must be compensatory in nature
and not to appear punitive or exemplary.
The Court is itself competent to ascertain the question of damages keeping in view the
circumstances of the case.
PLD 2002 Karachi 20
Maqasid-ul-Sharah--Types--There are six Maqasid-ul-Sharah, which are to be protected and they
are Hifzul Din (protection of faith), Hifzul Nafs (protection of life), Hifzul Mal (protection of
property), Hifzul Aql (protection of intellect), Hifzul Irz (protection of dignity) lnd Hifzul Nasb
(protection of paternity).
An earlier judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Kaikaus (as Judge of High Court, as his lordship
then was), in the case of Sharif v. Nawab Din PLD 1957 Lah. 283, has been cited with approval.
In this judgment it has been observed as follows:
"If damages are to be assessed only if the exact amount is proved, no damages can ever be
decreed. Damages have so many time to be awarded by the rule of thumb but the fact that the
exact amount is not determinable can be no reason for dismissal of suit."
2006 CLC 440
This is a case of slander. The slander is defined the case of Sir Edward Senlson, K.B.E. and
Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law V. the Judges of the High Court of
West Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD 1961 SC 237, which reads as under :
"Slander is defamation by words or in some transitory or fugitive form. It is actionable where the
matter calculated to F disparage to plaintiff in regard to his office, profession, etc. without proof
of special damage."
The principle for assessment of general damages in a case of libel also applies to the case of
slander and the damages have to be assessed keeping in view the circumstances of the case.

Regarding the determination of quantum in a case of frivolous litigation it was held in Mrs.
Zahra Zaidi V. M. Anwar Khan Ghauri 2004 CLC 223 which reads as under: -"No Yardstick existed to measure or assess actual quantum nof damages in respect of mental
torture sustained by plaintiff while facing agonies of a frivolous litigation against her--In order to
prove the expenditure incurred on such litigation, a party could place on record details of such
expenditures, but in the present case no specific evidence was available on that point--Even if
plaintiff failed to prove quantum of damages, her suit was not to be dismissed on that ground as
Court itself was competent in circumstances to ascertain quantum of damages."
In another judgment relating to assessment of damages arising out of an accident on account of
mental torture and nervous shock reported as Abdul Qadir V. S.K. Abbas Hussain and 2 others
PLD 1997 Kar. 566 it was held as under: "--Fair Compensation would be difficult to assess in such cases--Court would have discretion to
determine on basis of evidence, fair sum to be awarded to affected person--Concience of Court
must be satisfied that damages awarded would not completely, at least satisfactorily compensate
aggrieved party person who suffered mental torture and nervous was thus, entitled to recover
damages."
The other judgment with regard to assessment of damages for mental torture, the nervous shock
and injuries of like nature arising out of breach of duties or a wrongful negligent act of defendant
reported as "Sufi Muhammad Ishaque V. The Metropolitan Corporation Lahore through Mayor
PLD 1996 SC 737 it was held as under:"There can be no yardstick or definite principle for assessing damages in such cases. The
damages are meant to compensate a party who suffers injure. It may be bodily injury loss of
reputation, business and also metal shock and suffering.'.
(3)
"REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CAUSE"
PLD 2005 SC 432
(f) Tort---Malicious prosecution--Proof of existence of malice itself is not enough in suit for malicious
prosecution but it should be accompanied by poof of absence of reasonable and probable cause.
(g) Tort--

--Malicious prosecution--"Reasonable and probable cause"--Meaning--"Reasonable and probable


cause" means that it is an honest belief in the guilt of accused based upon full conviction, based
on reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be
true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent man to come to the conclusion that the person
charged was probably guilty of crime imputed--If reasonable and probable cause is established,
then question of malice becomes irrelevant.
(h) Words and phrases---"Reasonable" and probable cause"--Connotation.
(i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Arts. 4 & 14--Tort--Malicious prosecution--Suit for damages--Held, it would be more in
consonance with the genesis of the Constitution, Arts.4 & 14 in particular, to say that the
foundation of the action for damages for malicious prosecution lies not in the abuse of the
process of Court, but in the abuse in process of law--Principal--Supreme Court urged the Bar
Associations and the Bar Councils to educate the people and to file suit for damages against the
offenders apart from the criminal proceedings.
By Article 4 of the Constitution, it is the inalienable right of every citizen to enjoy the protection
of law and to be treated in accordance with law and in particular no action detrimental to the life,
and, liberty, body, reputation of property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with
law. Article 14 of the Constitution also guarantees the dignity of man and subject to law, the
privacy of home. In the context of the Constitution, if is no more necessary to hedge in an action
for damages for malicious prosecution by the condition that the action was an abuse of the
"process of the Court". It will be more in consonance with the gensis of the constitution, Articles
4 and 14 in particular, to say that the foundation of the action for damages for malicious
prosecution lies, not in the abuse of the process of Court, but in the abuse in process of law. For,
one has to bear in mind the ground realities of life existing in the country, it should appear
plainly that proceedings before the police afford a stronger ground for an action for malicious
prosecution than proceedings in a Court of law, for it is an unfortunate fact that, as things are,
human dignity suffers or is likely to suffer more at the hands of the police than in a Court of Law.
One of the modes to achieve this goal is to file a suit for damages against the offenders by the
aggrieved persons. It is the duty of the members of the Bar associations and Bar Council to
educate the people and to file suits for damages against the offenders apart from the. criminal
proceedings.
It is a high time to put the nation on a right path to promote the law of torts. In case citizens and
the Courts and conscious to save the nation from the agony of telling lies or involving innocent
persons in criminal cases, then the only solution to stop this frivolous litigation for the purpose of

taking revenge from the other side is to file suits for damages as and when the competent forum
has declared the accused persons as innocent acquitted/discharge by the competent Court so that
prosecution must lodge genuine cases.
It is also well settled principle of law that a prosecution may not be entirely mala fide but the
continuance of such prosecution after it was discovered that the facts upon which it was based
are not true may give rise to claim for damages for malicious prosecution. This doctrine is based
on the dictum of Cockburn, CJ in Fetzjohn v. 'Mackinder (30 LJCP 257). It is also settled law
that in suits for malicious prosecution proof of the existence of malice itself is not enough but
should be accompanies by proof of absence of reasonable and probable cause. See as follows:(i) United Bank Vs. Raja Ghulam Hussain (1999 SCMR 343)
(ii) Abul Rauf V. Abdul Razaq and another (PLD 1994 SC 476)
(iii) Muhammad Akram Vs. Mst. Farman Bi (PLD 1990 SC 28)
(iv) Raja Braja Sunder Deb V. Bandeb Das (AIR 1944 P.C. 1)
(v) Balbabaddar Singh V. Badari Sah (AIR 1926 P.C. 46)
(vi) Abdul Shakoor Vs. Lipton (AIR 1924 Lah. 1)
(vii) Noor Khan V. Fiwandas (AIR 1927 Lah. 120)
8. The maxim "The reasonable and probable cause" means that it is an honest belief in the guilt
of the accused based upon full conviction, based on reasonable grounds, of the existence of a
state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true would reasonabley lead any ordinary
prudent man to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty of crime imputed .
See (1881) 8 QBD 167 Hicks Vs. Faulkner. It is also a settled principle of law that if reasonable
and probable case is established, then question of malice becomes irrelevant as observed by
Denning L.J. in Tempest Vs. Snowden (1952) 1 K.B. 130 H It is pertinent to mention here that
judgments of both the Courts below are in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in
following judgments keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners:
(i) Muhammad Bashir V. The State (PLD 1982 SC 139)
(ii) Muhammad Yousaf Vs. Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah and others (NLR 1993 SCJ 462)
One of modes to achieve this goal is to file a suit for damages against the offenders by the
aggrieved person. It is the duty of the members of the Bar Associations and Bar Council to

educate the people and to file suits for damages against the offenders apart from the criminal
proceedings.
(b) Abdul Wahab Abbas V. Gul Muhamamd Hajano PLD 2008 Karachi 558
(c) Abdul Ghafoor V. Riaz Ahmed 2007 YLR 3089
(d) United Bank Ltd. V. Mian Ahmed Hassan 2006 CLD 255
(e) Muzammil Shah V. The State 2006 YLR 1431
(f) Mian Nazeer Ahmed V. WAPDA 2006 YLR 816
(g) Riaz Ahmad V. I.G. of Police and others 2006 MLD 1093
(h) Azizullah v. Jawaid A. Bajwa 2005 SCMR 1950
(i) Munir Ahmed V. Mst. Fazlan and others 2005 MLD 690
(j) Alia Khattak V. Muslim Commercial Bank 2005 CLD 99
(k) Shah Wali V. Muhammad Iqbal, PLD 2005 Lah. 214
(1) Akbar Khan V. Mausam Khan, 2004 CLC 1244
(m) Malik Khadim Hussain V. Haq Nawaz, 2004 CLC 184
(n) Muhammad Hanif V. Muhammad Yasin and others, 2004 YLR 173
(o) Mian Muhammad Anwer Khurshid V. Muhammad Yasin and another, 2003 MLD 1485
(p) WAPDA V. Muhammad Yaqoob, 2003 MLD 1145.
(q) Ameer ud Din V. Fazal Ur Rahman 2003 YLR 136.
(r) Khursheed Iqbal V. Allied Bank PLD 2003 AJK 1.
2004 YLR 173
Plaintiff, in circumstances, had reasonable and probable cause to sue the defendant/complainant
for malicious prosecution--Trial Court according to status of plaintiff had rightly determined the
amount and rightly decreed the suit rejecting his excess claim as plaintiff did not deserve more
amount as damages than the decretal amount.

PLD 2005 Azad J&K 15


----Damages--Right to receive or recover compensation by way of damages--Nature, object and
scope--Natural Law (Jura Naturalia) gives basic right for satisfaction from injury--Such
fundamental right is of universal nature based on natural reasons and natural justice--Such
natural right is essential for growth of well-being of society and primitive law of retaliation is not
calculated to promote its tranquility and advancement--Every violation of a right confers a right
on injured party to recover compensation--Damages are pecuniary compensation recoverable by
process of law by a person, who has sustained an injury through certain act or omission of
another--Basic object of damages is to compensate plaintiff for loss sustained by him due to fault
of other party--Right of injured persons to recover damages under various heads illustrated by
examples.
Damages--General and special damages--Proof--Special damages are required to be proved itemwise to the extent of damages sustained by claiment-- General damages are measured by
applying the "rule of thumb" and Court has discretion to calculate damages according to
circumstances of case.
The right to recover compensation is a primary right conferred by the law of nature. This
fundamental right is of a universal nature. It is based on the natural reasons and natural justice.
Justinian in his institutes says "Natural Law (Jura Naturalia)" which is observed equally, in all
Nations established by divine providence remains forever settled and immutable.
Blackstone in his commentary in book second Chapter 29, page 438, says that the basic right for
the satisfaction from the injury was given by the law of nature and the right to receive
satisfaction is based on the sanctity of individual right, which humanity has always been, from its
infancy, jealously protecting from being wantonly violated. This natural right is essential for the
growth of well-being of society and during the successive stages of civilizations, various means
were devised for enforcing the same. The right to receive compensation is a natural right. It is
regulated by a number of maxims which are condensed for the good sense of Nations.
Harbert Brown says that the authority of the maxims rests entirely upon the general receptions
and usages and the only method of proving that this maxim or that maxim is a rule of common
law, is by 'showing that it has been always the custom to observe it.
Broom says that it would indeed be highly interesting to trace from a remote period though
successive stages, the gradual development of these principles to observe their primitive and
more obvious meanings and to show how they have been applied "by the living oracles" of the
law to meet the increasing exigency of society and those complicated facts which are the result
of commerce, civilization and reinforcement. Human society has gone through a period by no
means short of strife and tribulations. It must have recognized that primitive law of retaliation is

not calculated to promote for its tranquility and advancement. The basic and elementary principle
is evolved out of this idea, therefore, has been embodied in the elementary maxim "ubi jus ibi
remedium" which means that where there is a right, there is a remedy. In simple words, it can be
said that there is no wrong without a remedy. If a man has a right, he must have sources and
means to vindicate and enforce it. The maxim "lex semper dabat remedium" means that law will
always provide remedy.
Every violation or infringement of a right confers a right on the injured party to recover
compensation. This right is called by the Jurist Salmond as a sanctioning right which is of two
kinds, i.e.:(i) The right to receive pecuniary penalty;
(ii) The right to exact and receive the damages or other pecuniary compensation.
The British and Indian Laws are unfamiliar with the former kind. The later form of right is most
important and relief with this form of right is remedial in its nature. Awarding of compensation to
injured party against the wrong-doer is punished by giving penal redress to the injured or simple
compensation is given. In either case, the law simply awards compensation to the sufferer. This
compensation 'is awarded in the shape of damages which is awarded according to certain rules
which are known as, measures of damages.
Damages are defined as pecuniary compensation recoverable by the process of law by a person
who has sustained an injury through the certain act or omission of another. Lexstone in his
commentary defined damages as "spices of property i.e. acquired and lost by suit and judgment
at law". The injured party has unquestionably a vague and indeterminate right to some damages.
The damages may also be defined.
As disadvantage suffered by a person as a result of the act or default of another. The basic object
of the damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the loss sustained by him. Its main object is to
compensate the plaintiff, for all the loss he has suffered so far again as money can do it.
It is to be noted that while considering the topic of damages, two questions arise for
determination:-(i) The question of liability i.e. whether damages are due at all or in other words whether the
person against whom the complaint was lodged is liable or not for the damages;
(ii) The question as to quantum of damages;
The basic object of the damages is to compensate the plaintiff for all the loss suffered due to the
fault of other party. There are two kinds of damages:--

(1) General and


(2) Special.
General damages pertain to non-pecuniary losses which could not be calculated in the terms of
money. Such non-pecuniary losses are thus:-(a) in respect of pain suffering and shock suffered by the plaintiff by the assault;
(b) losses of amenities of life such as the plaintiff suffers by reducing enjoyments of life due to
the damages caused by the assault which may apart from any material or pecuniary losses of
attendant upon the loss of amenities;
(c) loss of expectation of life;
(d) inconvenience and discomfort; and
(e) exemplary damages whether the conduct of the defendant has been so outrageous or
scandalous for which more punitive damages are required.
On the other hand, special damages are such damages which could be computed in the terms of
money, Halsbury calls "special damages" which could be laid and proved in the terms of figure.
While on the other hand, the general damages are defined as which could not be computed in the
terms of money. The Court while awarding the compensation has to consider various kinds of
damages. An injured person can recover the damages in respect of various heads. For example,
reasonable expenses incurred for medical treatment, nursing, medical appliances and other
incidental expenses. The injured person is, however, entitled to damages for loss of earning
where he has lost his earning capacity due to the injury. He is also entitled to the general
damages in respect of pain and suffering which he has undergone till the M date of trial and
which he is likely to undergo thereafter. The damages could also be awarded in respect of the
happiness which a person might expect to have enjoyed in the years of life or which he has been
deprived under the head of "loss of expectations of life".
(4)
MENTAL AGONY
2005 MLD 690

Plaintiff had suffered damages as protracted litigation initiated by defendant against plaintiff not
only caused plaintiff financial loss in shape of engaging counsel to pursue his case, but also had
caused him mental agony and torture..
1995 CLC 1246
Suit for damages by Advocate on basis of article published in a monthly digest by defendant-Plaintiff s assertion in plaint was that the article was aimed at to deliberately and maliciously
damage his integrity and character and to demolish his reputation as a leading lawyer of the
country and as a person of honour and high social status.
Damages--Quantification of--Paramount consideration in suits for damages would be to see
whether in case of a publication (giving rise to suit for damages) certain imputation harmful to
the reputation of a person was contained or not --Determination of exact amount of damages was
not possible and was in fact not a mandatory prerequisite before filing of such suit.
PLD 1996 Lahore 50
Suit for damages--Imputation of a criminal offence -- Imputation of criminal offence is
actionable per se in the probability of social ostracism of the plaintiff -- Plaintiff, even in
imputation of a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment, can recover damages for
malicious prosecution and for injury to his reputation.
(5)
DOCUMENT IF AVAILABLE ON RECORD COULD BE LOOKED INTO
1992 CLC 2193
Maxim that a person can tell lies but a document cannot" was fully attracted to the facts and
circumstances of the case--Agreement to sell was not proved in circumstances.
1993 CLC 185
Document although not properly produced in evidence, but if available on record, could be
looked into.--[Practice and procedure].
PLD 1975 Lahore 1170 and 1175 rel.
(6)

ACTION PERDONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA -MAXIM - APPLICATION OF


ENTIRE FAMILY SUFFERS
KLR 1991 CIVIL CASES LAHORE 72
False and malicious prosecution/damages claim for
Article 4 Good Reputation or fair name is a basic right of a citizen in Islam.
Article 4 & 14--The foundation of the action for damages for malicious prosecution lies not in
the abuse of the process of the Court but in the process of law.
It is common knowledge that if man is subjected to false and malicious persecution the object is
to prosecute and harass not only that man but his dependents and family members also. The
resulting damage not confined to that man: the entire family suffers--The objects of actions for
damages for malicious prosecution being to discourage the perversion of the machinery of justice
for an improper purpose.
(7)
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICER
2008 YLR 900
Suit for damages against judicial officer for his malafide act--Maintainability Judicial Officer
after passing order of return of plaint in a previous suit, kept its file with him for two months
which order was ultimately set aside and suit was decreed--Plaintiffs plea in subsequent suit for
damages was that Judicial Officer (Defendant) had retained file of his previous suit with
malafide intention in order to cause him prejudice--Trial Court rejected plaint to the extent of
Judicial Officer-- No Protection was available under law, for such action--High Court accepted
revision petitioner and set aside impugned order with direction to Trial Court to decide case after
inviting written statements from defendants, framing issues and conducting trial.