Court recorded statements of 20 witnesses and cross-examinations were also completed earlier
LAHORE:
A Lahore’s sessions court on Tuesday ruled in favour of singer Ali Zafar in his defamation lawsuit against Meesha Shafi, ordering her to pay Rs5 million in damages.
Zafar had filed a defamation claim of Rs1 billion against Meesha after she accused him of harassment, with the case having spanned over eight years.
The verdict was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Asif Hayat. In its ruling, the court upheld Zafar’s claim and ordered Meesha to pay a fine of Rs5 million, stating that Meesha’s allegations against Zafar were defamatory.
Throughout the eight-year period, nine judges were changed, and 283 hearings were held. A total of 20 witnesses were called to testify, and their statements were recorded.
During the final session, both sides’ legal teams presented their closing arguments. The court had previously recorded the statements of the 20 witnesses, and cross-examinations were also completed.
Read More: Meesha Shafi asks court to dismiss Ali Zafar’s defamation suit
In 2018, Zafar filed a defamation suit against Meesha, who accused him of sexual harassment. He filed the defamation suit through his counsel Rana Intizar, demanding Rs1 billion in damages.
Intizar contended before the court that Meesha had damaged the reputation of his client with “baseless allegations”. He pleaded that the court direct Shafi to tender an unconditional apology and pay Rs1 billion in damages.
Zafar had previously sent a legal notice to Meesha stating that her tweets, dated April 19, 2018, were “false, slanderous, and defamatory” and “caused tremendous injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill, and livelihood.”
The trial court had originally imposed the gag order on January 24, 2019, following Zafar’s defamation suit. Meesha’s subsequent appeal to the LHC had been dismissed.
In 2021, the Supreme Court accepted Meesha’s petition filed against the LHC order for the preliminary hearing. After hearing the arguments, the apex court remarked that the points raised by the petitioner must be reviewed, and clubbed the case with the suo motu notice taken to define sexual harassment, also pending in the court.
