Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Companies / JCM proceedings---Leave to appeal---C.P.L.A. Nos.2543/2025, 871-K/2025 & 872-K/2025 (Greentree Holdings / TRGI / TRGP v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti etc.)---Held, for detailed reasons to be recorded, leave granted; petitions converted into appeals which are all dismissed---Appellants jointly and severally to bear respondent No.1’s costs in the appeals. Disposition: Leave granted; appeals dismissed with costs against appellants jointly and severally. Announced in open Court. Not approved for reporting. Dated hearing 03.02.2026 (announced thereafter).

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (X of 1984)----Art. 117---Burden of proof---Ex parte proceedings---Unrebutted evidence---Appellant company filed a suit for recovery of Rs.90,28,645/- with markup at 15% against Capital Development Authority on the plea of unpaid contractual dues for electrically operated steel sliding anti-riot gates and anti-terrorist bollards at the Prime Minister House---Trial Court proceeded against the defendant ex parte and decreed the suit for Rs.970,764/- with profit at bank rate without returning findings on issues the onus of which it treated as lying on the defendant---High Court set aside the decree---Held, that Art. 117 encapsulates the maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat; the burden of proving a fact rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative and never shifts unless and until that party discharges the initial burden through legally admissible, credible and reliable evidence---Until such burden is discharged, the opposite party is under no obligation to lead evidence in rebuttal---Burden squarely lay upon the appellant to establish execution and terms of the alleged agreement, completion of work, correctness of the claimed amount and subsisting liability---Documents relied upon were not proved in accordance with law, being largely unverified copies, and no independent or primary evidence was produced---Mere fact that evidence remained unrebutted or unchallenged could not, by itself, elevate it to the status of legally proved evidence---Burden never shifted upon the respondent, and the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit without first satisfying itself that the appellant had discharged the burden under Art. 117---Rule remained subject to the settled principle that facts admitted need not be proved. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----S. 3 & Arts. 65 & 115---Suit for compensation for breach of contract---Three years---Accrual of cause of action---Subsequent correspondence---Law of limitation is not a mere technicality but is founded upon public policy intended to ensure certainty and finality in legal proceedings---S. 3 casts a mandatory duty upon the Court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period, even if limitation has not been set up as a defence, and admits of no discretion once the claim is found time-barred---Arts. 65 and 115 both prescribe three years, and the starting point is the occurrence of breach or the point when the right to sue accrues---Cause of action arises not when the claimant chooses to assert his claim at a later stage, but when the alleged breach occurs or when the claim is unequivocally denied---Once the appellant's claim for additional payment was declined by CDA, the right to sue stood crystallised and limitation began to run---Subsequent correspondence, representations or administrative exchanges, in the absence of a clear and legally cognizable acknowledgment of liability, do not postpone, suspend or extend the limitation period---Even on the appellant's own showing, the latest possible point of accrual could not travel beyond the refusal communicated in 1997, and even if the subsequent representation in 2007 were taken into consideration, institution of the suit in 2013 remained ex facie barred by time---Correspondence between the parties neither stopped limitation from running nor constituted a continuation of the limitation period. Cited Cases: • Mst. Nazeeran and others v. Ali Bux and others 2024 SCMR 1271 • Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Works and another v. Messrs Malbrow Builders, Contractor, Sialkot 2006 SCMR 1248 • Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority v. Province of Sindh and another 2026 SCMR 190 • Province of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer v. Abdul Tawab and others PLD 2026 Supreme Court 113 Disposition: Civil appeal dismissed; judgment dated 22.02.2018 of the Islamabad High Court in R.F.A. No.224 of 2016, setting aside the Trial Court judgment and decree dated 26.10.2016 and dismissing the appellant's suit, left undisturbed. (C.A. No.871 of 2018, Supreme Court of Pakistan, judgment dated 11.05.2026, by Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.; Approved for Reporting)