Documentary proof and burden shift sustain civil money claim; limitation plea fails due to Covid-19 extension.

A civil money claim was upheld on the basis of documentary proof of transactions, including invoices, ledger entries and C-form declarations. Once those records established the supplies and dealings, the burden shifted to the defendants to prove full discharge of liability; their reliance on an unproved auditor's report and a plea of settlement was found insufficient. The limitation objection also failed because, although the ordinary three-year period had expired, the filing was treated as timely in view of the Supreme Court's Covid-19 extension of time. The decree was therefore maintained and the appellate challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit claims were barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to the suit claims and whether the trial court's decree called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the suit claims were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The last payments were made in August 2017 and the suits were instituted in May 2022. The Court accepted that the limitation period would ordinarily run for three years, but held that the period stood extended by the order passed by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic. On that basis, the suits were treated as having been filed within time.

Conclusion: The suit claims were not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to the suit claims and whether the trial court's decree called for interference.

Analysis: The Court relied on the invoices, ledger entries and the C-form declarations to hold that the transactions and supplies were established. It further held that once the transactions stood admitted, the burden shifted to the defendants to prove full discharge of liability. The defendants' reliance on an auditor's report and their plea of full settlement were held insufficient, particularly as the auditor was not examined. Applying the civil standard of proof, the Court found that the plaintiff had proved its claim on a preponderance of probability and that no ground existed to disturb the decree.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to the suit claims and the decree did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a civil money claim, once the plaintiff establishes the transactions by acceptable documentary evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove discharge of liability, and a limitation plea cannot succeed where the filing is saved by a valid judicial extension of time.

---