The Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared that the law of limitation is not merely a procedural technicality but a mandatory legal principle founded on public policy. The court held that any suit filed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period is not maintainable.
Judgment Details
In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui on behalf of a three-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, the court further ruled that no decree can be granted on the basis of unproven documents or insufficient evidence. The bench dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Stallions (Private) Limited and upheld the Islamabad High Court's verdict.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a claim by a private construction company, which asserted that it had installed additional security gates, anti-riot gates, bollards and road blockers at the Prime Minister House in 1996. The company alleged that the Capital Development Authority (CDA) failed to make full payment for the work and later filed a suit in 2013 seeking recovery of more than Rs90 million, including outstanding dues and profits.
Burden of Proof
The Supreme Court observed that under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, which must be established through admissible and legally acceptable evidence. The court held that the failure of the opposing party to challenge evidence does not automatically render defective or unproven evidence legally valid. The judgment noted that the plaintiff company had failed to prove the documents relied upon in support of its claim and had also failed to produce independent and credible evidence to substantiate its assertions. As a result, the burden of proof never shifted to the CDA.
Limitation Period
The court further observed that courts are duty-bound to independently examine whether a suit has been filed within the prescribed limitation period, regardless of whether any party raises the issue. It emphasized that the law aids those who pursue their rights diligently and within the prescribed time, not those who remain inactive for extended periods.
The Supreme Court ruled that the company’s cause of action arose in 1997 when its demand for additional payment was rejected. Even if subsequent correspondence was considered, the suit filed in 2013 remained clearly barred by limitation. The judgment clarified that correspondence, representations or repeated requests do not suspend or extend the limitation period. Concluding that the Islamabad High Court had correctly appreciated both the law and the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal.
