 |
| Cause of action start final deny 2026 clc 334 |
— ای میل اکاؤنٹ اسٹیٹمنٹ اور لمیٹیشن کے اصول پر اہم عدالتی فیصلہ
مقدمہ کا خلاصہ
اہم نکات (ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ)
قانونی اہمیت
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 334
[Sindh]
Before Muhammad Jaffer Raza, J
in
Messrs FLY DUBAI through Authorised Representative ---Appellant
Versus
Syed YAWAR HUSSAIN ---Respondent
IInd Appeal No. 53 of 2025, decided on 27th May, 2025.
Vo
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.100 & O.XLI, R.31---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 62--Suit for recovery amount---Limitation---Computation and determination---Accrual of cause of action-Effect of recurring/continuing correspondence between the parties---Computation of limitation period from date of last refusal-Effect-The respondent filed suit for recovery of certain outstanding amounts allegedly reflected in statements of account exchanged between the parties during 2015-2021-The suit was initially rejected under O.VII R.11, C.P.C., but the appellate court remanded the matter for a decision on merits---After trial, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground of limitation, but the first appellate court reversed that decision and decreed the claim---The present second appeal arose from this reversal, raising the issue as to "whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the appellate court had correctly relied upon the email-based statements of account sent by the appellant as constituting a workable basis for the decree?"---Held: Cross examination of the appellant revealed that appellate had conceded to the cause of action arising in the year 2021-The email of 2021 had been admitted by the appellant and in this regard, High Court agreed with the findings of the appellate cor the appellate court that even if it is presumed that Art.62 of the Limitation A Act of 1908 was applicable to the present case, even then the suit filed by the respondent was within the prescribed period of limitation---The time, it was held, was correctly calculated from the date of refusal i.e.04.03.2021, by the appellate court---Statements of accounts admittedly sent by the appellant through the email reflected the amount owed to the respondent---The said statement of accounts had not been denied by the appellant's witness---It was also admitted that the appellant did not produce their accountant before the Trial Court to rebut the claim of the respondent---It was further held that once the statement of accounts was exhibited by the respondent before the Trial Court, the burden shifted to the appellant to disprove the same e same for which he made no such effort---Trial Court needlessly deliberated, very extensively, on the applicability of various Articles of the Limitation Act 1908, without appreciating that the cause of action arose in the favour of the respondent lastly on 04.03.2021---Once this apparent conclusion was reached the deliberation regarding the applicability of various Articles under the Limitation Act, 1908 became futile---Present second appeal was devoid of any merits-Suit of the respondent was decreed in the sum of Rs.4,617,021.62/---Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstance.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)...
O.XLI, R.31-Appellate court is required to determine points for determination, the decision on those points, and the reasons. for the decision.
Meer Gul v. Raja Zafar Mehmood through legal heirs and others 2024 SCMR 1496 rel.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-S.100---Second appeal---Parameters of interference--Right to file second appeal can be set into motion only when the decision is contrary to law; fails to determine some material issue material issue of law, and substantial el otion only when the Code or law. substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the
Bahar Shah v. Mansoor Ahmed 2022 SCMR 284 rel.
Shanu-ur-Rehman for Appellant.
Syed Mustafa Mehdi along with Faraz Akbar Shah for Respondent.