The Sessions Court has dismissed former PCB chairman Najam Sethi’s defamation claim of Rs 100 million against cricketer Aamir Sohail after ten years. The court ruled that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to prolong the case by playing different tricks on the court. The claim is dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence.
It is worth mentioning here that, ten years back, the former PCB chairman, Najam Sethi had filed a defamation case of Rs 100 million against former cricketer Aamir Sohail. The court’s decision stated that ‘the present case was filed in this court on June 5, 2015, and that is one of the oldest cases pending in this court. The plaintiff repeatedly wasted court time by avoiding deadlines and presenting evidence. The plaintiff was also given clear warnings on several occasions. The plaintiff is required to prove his case through oral and documentary evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden of proof always lies with the plaintiff. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the plaintiff failed to present a single witness. The claim is dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence.’
Moreover, the decision stated that the claim was made by the plaintiff: ‘He is a credible, independent and international journalist and a former federal minister and former Chief Minister of Punjab and was also appointed as the Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) by the federal government; he was targeted by the defendant to gain cheap fame in the eyes of the public. The defendant made extremely malicious and insulting statements against the plaintiff in a private TV program on April 27, 2015. The statements made were completely baseless, false, incorrect, and malicious.’
According to Sathi’s claim, ‘The defendant’s inflammatory statement damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. The defendant did this in an attempt to pressurise the PCB to obtain employment or consultancy. The defendant did not respond to legal notices under the Defamation Act. The plaintiff suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and good name, which is estimated to be approximately Rs 100 million.’
The honourable court’s decision stated that the defendant, Aamir Sohail, opposed the plaintiff’s claim in a written response, denied the plaintiff’s stance, and requested that the claim be dismissed.
