ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that courts have no authority in condoning delay in the filing of a lawsuit if barred by time due to expiry of the period, though concession of time can be granted by the courts if strong reasons are made out such as disability or insanity.

The language used in Section 3 of the Limitation Act is mandatory in nature and imposes a duty upon the courts to dismiss the lawsuit or a complaint instituted after the expiry of period provided, unless the plaintiff seeks exclusion of time by pleading grounds provided in section 4 to 25 of the act such as disability, insanity etc, said Justice Sajjad Ali Shah in a judgment he wrote.

“It is to be kept in mind that upon expiry of the limitation period, a claimant loses his right to enforce his claim through the court of law and consequently a right accrues in favour of the other party, which cannot be lightly disturbed or brushed aside unless sufficient cause is show and accepted by the court,” Justice Shah explained in the verdict.

Justice Shah, who retired as the Supreme Court judge on Aug 14, was a member of a three-judge bench also comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah that had taken up an appeal against the Balochistan High Court (BHC) ruling that allowed fresh filing of the case for trial on merits after setting aside the concurrent findings of the courts below on the point of limitation.

SC sets aside BHC ruling in lease case

The case at hand involves filing of a suit on April 23, 2001 against petitioners Muhammad Anwar — now deceased — and Abdul Hameed, seeking cancellation of their lease and mutation etc on some properties. In the lawsuit the cause of action accrued in 1971-72 and thereafter on different dates of July 2000 etc. But the suit was dismissed on June 25, 2001 by holding it to be barred by time though the BHC on March 28, 2002 allowed withdrawal of the suit for filing it afresh.

The judgement recalled how respondents in the present case with name of Essa on June 18, 2002 filed a suit wherein the case of action was asserted to have arisen in July 2000 instead of 1971-72 as argued in the first plaint. The plaint however was returned in October 25, 2005 for the want of jurisdiction. The respondents instead of presenting the same plaint to the court of competent jurisdiction filed a fresh suit on April 27, 2006 in the court from which these proceedings had emanated. Again the court of first instance on Sept 18, 2007 dismissed the suit being barred by time. The respondents instead of filing the appeal before the district judge approached the BHC which on Sept 15, 2011 returned the appeal to the respondents to present it before the district judge, which also dismissed the same on Dec 30, 2013.

The respondents thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the high court, which dealt with the issue of limitation, according to the judgment, in a very casual and callous manner by holding that the limitation act empowers the court to enhance the period of limitation and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to decide it on merits.

Justice Shah regretted that the high court had failed to consider and appreciate that the parameters of discretion in condoning the delay in filing an application, appeal, review or revision etc were totally different than the powers vested in court to condone the delay occasioned in filing the suit.

The courts on the original side while trying a suit is required under Section 3 of the act to dismiss the suit if it is found to be barred by time notwithstanding that the limitation has not been set up as defence.

The court even has no discretion or power to condone the delay in the filing of suit on the humanitarian grounds or by invoking the principles of equity unless any of the grounds prescribed in the act was available to the plaintiff and is duly pleaded, Justice Shah observed also citing 1997 Indian Supreme Court judgment in P.K. Ramchandran case in which it was held that the law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.

The Supreme Court, however, set aside the BHC order and maintained the concurrent orders of the trial courts.

Published in Dawn, August 29th, 2022