Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 117

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 3 , 65 ,115

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 117--Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Arts. 65 & 115--Suit for Recovery of Rs. 90,28,645/---Decreed--Appeal--Allowed--Burden of Proof--Documentary evidence--Ex-parte decree--Contractual liability--Cause of action--Limitation--Acknowledgment of liability--Correspondence--Right to sue--Article 117 ibid provided that when a person was bound to prove existence of any fact, burden of proof lay upon that person--Obligation to establish a fact in issue never shifted unless and until party asserting such fact discharged initial burden cast upon him through legally admissible, credible, and reliable evidence--Until such burden was discharged, opposite party was under no obligation to lead evidence in rebuttal--Burden, therefore, squarely lay upon appellant to establish, through cogent and legally admissible evidence, not only execution and terms of alleged agreement but also completion of work, correctness of claimed amount, and subsisting liability of respondent--Appellant failed to discharge this initial burden since documents relied upon were not proved in accordance with law, being largely in nature of unverified copies, and no independent or primary evidence was produced to substantiate claim--Mere fact that evidence remained unrebutted or unchallenged could not, by itself, elevate it to status of legally proved evidence--Correspondence between appellant and respondent neither stopped limitation from running nor was deemed to have constituted a continuation of limitation period--Appeal dismissed.                                                                   [Pp. 475 & 477] A, B, E & F Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)-- ----S. 3--Dismissal of time Barred suit--Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1908 cast a mandatory duty upon Court to dismiss any suit instituted after…