Key facts
- Court
- Consumer Protection Court, Karachi (South)
- Case no.
- Claim No. 02 of 2021
- Bench
- Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate / Consumer Protection Court, Karachi (South)
- Date of decision
- 22 April 2021
- Outcome
- Claimant's application for condonation of delay dismissed; defendant's Order VII Rule 11 CPC application allowed; claim dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs.
- Counsel
- Mr. Amjad Ali Shar, advocate for the defendant
- We acted for
- The defendant (event planning company)
Personal details such as CNIC numbers, phone numbers, home addresses and FIR numbers are redacted in the PDF.
Background
As recorded in the order, the claimant company hired the defendant, an event planning company, on 19.02.2020 to manage its annual dinner for about 1,200 people on 25.02.2020. It alleged that the services were faulty: no proper audio-video presentation, a committed performance did not take place and the agreed menu was not served. Emails were exchanged until 04.08.2020, a legal notice was served on 02.12.2020, and the claim was filed on 09.01.2021.
The applications
The claimant applied for condonation of delay under section 29(4) of the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014, saying its work came to a standstill during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the claim as barred by law, arguing that the claim had to be filed within thirty days, that civil courts resumed work in August 2020, and that the claim was filed only after the defendant demanded its unpaid balance. It relied on 2019 CLC 580 and 2018 CLD 1064.
The Court's reasoning
Limitation under section 29(4). A claim must be filed within thirty days of the cause of action; the court may allow it later only if satisfied there was sufficient cause. The cause of action arose on 25.02.2020, when the allegedly defective service was provided.
COVID-19. The court recognised that the Sindh High Court had suspended ordinary judicial work from March 2020 until 02.08.2020. But after the last email of 04.08.2020 the claimant remained silent for about 120 days before serving a legal notice. Asked to explain, counsel said sufficient staff was not available, which the court held was not a justifiable reason: a party seeking condonation must account for each day of delay.
Duty to check limitation early. The court relied on Al-Ghazi Tractor Limited v. Peer Muhammad Ali (2019 CLC 580), that a court must test a proceeding on limitation at the very initial stage, and on 2016 CLC Note 122.
Outcome
The condonation application was dismissed and the Order VII Rule 11 application was allowed. The claim, being on its face barred by limitation, was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Why it matters
The Sindh consumer law sets a short 30-day limit. This order shows that the COVID-19 closures did not excuse delay after courts reopened, and that continuing negotiations or emails do not stop limitation from running.
Frequently asked questions
Have a consumer complaint, or facing one?
Speak to our consumer protection advocates. Call or WhatsApp +92 308 2254647 (Monday to Saturday, 11:00 am to 7:30 pm), or send an enquiry through our contact page.
This page is a plain-English summary of a reported decision, prepared from the judgment itself. It is general information, not legal advice, and every case depends on its own facts. The summary does not add to or interpret the judgment; please refer to the full text (PDF) for the court's exact words.