Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 117

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 3, 65,115

Summary  The appellant, a construction company, sued CDA in 2013 seeking recovery of unpaid contract money and accrued markup for works completed in 1996; the Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte in 2016, but the Islamabad High Court allowed CDA’s first appeal in 2018, holding the plaintiff had not proved its claim with admissible evidence and that the suit was time-barred under Articles 65 and 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908; the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming that the burden of proof lay on the claimant (Article 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984) and that the cause of action accrued in or soon after 1997 so the 2013 suit was barred by limitation. Core points: Parties: Appellant (registered construction company) v. Respondent (Capital Development Authority, CDA). Claim: Recovery of Rs.90,28,645/- (outstanding contract balance + markup) for works completed in Aug 1996. Trial Court outcome: Ex parte decree for appellant (26.10.2016) for Rs.970,764/- with profit at bank rate. High Court outcome: Allowed CDA’s regular first appeal (22.02.2018); set aside Trial Court decree. Supreme Court review: Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed. Evidence issue: Appellant failed to discharge initial burden under Article 117 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 — documents were largely unverified copies and oral evidence insufficient. Limitation issue: Suit filed in 2013 was time-barred; cause of action accrued by 1997 (or at least by 2007 at the latest), making the 2013 suit outside the three-year period under Articles 65 and 115, Limitation Act, 1908. Legal principles emphasized: burden of proof rests on the party asserting the claim (ei incumbit probatio qui dicit); courts must enforce limitation per Section 3 Limitation Act, 1908; law aids the vigilant (Leges vigilantibus…). Final result: Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment confirmed. Law and Section Law / Section Rule / Meaning Applied in this case Article 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 Burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. The appellant had to prove the contract, work done, and amount due, but failed to prove the documents properly. Section 3, Limitation…