CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MAQBOOL AHMAD and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman, Pakistan Railways, against a High Court order that dismissed its civil revision. The petitioner sought to challenge a decree in a suit for recovery of damages on the ground that the respondents' original suit was time-barred. The core legal question was whether a plea of limitation, which was not raised before the trial court, could be raised as a matter of right before an appellate or revisional forum. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a party cannot raise a plea of limitation for the first time before a higher forum if it was not raised before the court to which the plea initially related. The Court affirmed that appellate and revisional courts are not obligated to entertain such pleas when they were omitted at the trial stage. The key principle laid down is that the failure to raise a plea of limitation before the trial court precludes a party from asserting it as a right in subsequent appellate or revisional proceedings.
- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before an appellate or revisional court if it was not raised before the trial court?
- Is an appellate court duty-bound to examine a plea of limitation that was not raised before the trial court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendcnt in a suit for recovery of damages, against the dismissal by the High Court of its Civil Revision (against the dismissal of his time-barred appeal).
2. ' The only point urged by the learned counsel is that the respondents' suit was time-barred. When questioned whether the plea of limitation was, in that behalf, raised before the trial Court and an issue was sought to be framed, the learned counsel answered in the negative; but contended that this plea having been taken in the first appeal Court, that Court and the High Court were duty bound to examine and decide it on merits. We do not agree with him. It has been held in a number of cases decided by this Court that if a party does not raise the plea of limitation before the Court concerned to which the plea initially relates, the same could not be raised as of right before a higher forum simply because the lower forum was under a duty to examine the question of limitation. As admitted,A this question was not raised before the trial Court. In the circumstances of this case, we would not examine it at this stage. On merits also, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the imugncd judgment Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused with the remarks that the petitioner may recover the amount in question from its employee/s found in default. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.