| Case ID |
2e73d6cd-e340-44c4-acdf-526c5eeb1054 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petitions Nos. 2608 and 609 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 11, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 11, 2022 |
| Decision |
These Civil Petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the consolidated judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi bench in Civil Revisions Nos. 1165-D/2017 and 1166-D/2017 on 14.03.2019, whereby both the Civil Revisions were dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 30-06-2001 with the time fixed as 30-06-2002, but the suit was filed on 4-4-2011, thereby making it time-barred. The petitioner argued novation due to the death of a party and obtaining guardianship certificates; however, the courts found no evidence of novation and upheld that the suit was time-barred. The petitioner's plea was not convincing enough to overlook or relax the starting point of limitation for accruing the cause of action under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Additionally, the petitioner failed to implement necessary legal steps within the period of limitation. Thus, the courts below rightly held that the suit was time-barred, and the Civil Petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined. |
| Summary |
In the case of Civil Petitions Nos. 2608 and 609 of 2019, the Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered a pivotal decision on 11th April 2022, addressing the legitimacy and timeliness of a petitioner's suit for the specific performance of a contract dated 30th June 2001. The petitioner, MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ABBASI, challenged the Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi bench judgment from 14th March 2019, which had dismissed both Civil Revisions Nos. 1165-D and 1166-D of 2017. The crux of the matter centered on whether the petitioner’s delayed filing of the suit on 4th April 2011 was justifiable under the Limitation Act, 1908, particularly invoking the concept of novation due to unforeseen circumstances like the death of a contracting party and the subsequent need to secure guardianship certificates for minor heirs.
The petitioner contended that these exigent factors effectively reset the limitation period, arguing that the period for filing should commence from the refusal to perform the contract rather than the original date stipulated in the agreement. This argument was rooted in the belief that the death of Rashid Pervaiz, a key signatory to the contract, and the involvement of minor legal heirs warranted an extension of the limitation period through novation of the contract. Novation, as defined under Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872, implies the substitution of a new contract in place of an old one, thereby extinguishing the original obligations.
However, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the absence of documented evidence supporting the novation claim. The court emphasized that for a valid novation to occur, there must be clear, written consent from all parties involved, effectively replacing the original agreement with a new one. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide any such documentation or formal agreement that would substantiate the claim of contract novation. Additionally, the petitioner did not pursue necessary legal avenues within the specified limitation period, such as impling heirs or appointing guardians ad litem in a timely manner, further undermining the argument for an extended limitation period.
The court referenced several precedents, including Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others (1994 SCMR 2189), Benjamin Scarf v. Alfred George Jardine (1882) 7 AC 345, and Lata Construction and others v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another AIR 2000 SC 380. These cases elucidate the stringent requirements for novation and the necessity of clear, unequivocal agreements to replace existing contracts. The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner’s suit was indeed time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as there was no valid novation to reset the limitation period.
This decision underscores the paramount importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and the rigorous standards required to substantiate claims of novation. Legal practitioners and litigants must ensure meticulous documentation and prompt legal action to avoid unfavorable outcomes. The case also highlights the judiciary’s adherence to procedural compliance and the disallowance of extensions in limitation periods without substantive, documented justification. By affirming the lower courts' dismissal of the Civil Petitions, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that statutory limitations are to be strictly observed unless incontrovertible evidence dictates otherwise. This judgment serves as a critical reference for future cases involving contractual disputes and limitation period challenges, emphasizing that procedural diligence and comprehensive documentation are indispensable in legal proceedings. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Rashid Pervaiz
|
| Judges |
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE,
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan,
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ABBASI
|
| Respondents |
MST. NAHEED BEGUM AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 1163,
2022 SCMR 1074
|
| Other Citations |
Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCMR 2189,
Benjamin Scarf v. Alfred George Jardine (1882) 7 AC 345,
Lata Construction and others v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another AIR 2000 SC 380
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief (Punjab Amendment) (Repeal) Ordinance, 1983,
Limitation Act, 1908,
Contract Act, 1872
|
| Sections |
12,
3,
113,
62
|