LIMITATION ACT

S.3 – BAR OF LIMITATION

- (1) Subject to the provisions of S.4-24, if for any suit instituted, appeal preferred, and
application made after prescribed period, it shall be dismissed, if limitation hasn’t been set
up as a defence.

- (2) For the purposes of this act –

o (a) a suit is instituted –

 (i) upon presentation of plaint to the proper officer,

 (ii) in the case of pauper, when application for leave to sue as a pauper is
made, and

 (iii) in the case of a claim against a company, which is being wound up by the
court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to official liquidator;

o (b) any claim by way of a set-off or counter-claim to be treated as a separate and be

deemed to be instituted –

 In case of a set-off, on the same date as the same suit in which set-off has
been pleaded;

 In case of a counter claim, the date on which counter claim is made in court;

o (c) An application by notice of motion in HC is made when the application is made to

the proper officer of that court.

S.5 – EXTENSION OF PRESCRIBED PERIOD IN CERTAIN CASES [TALKS ABOUT APPEAL AND
APPLICATION ONLY, NO INSTITUTION OF SUIT]

- Any appeal or application, other than an application under any provision of order 21, maybe
admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he
had sufficient case for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the
prescribed period.

LEGAL DISABILITY

S.6 – LEGAL DISABILITY

- (1) where a person who is entitled to institute a suit or make an application for execution of
decree, is insane, idiot or a minor, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be
reckoned (is to be counted), he may institute the suit or make an application for execution of
 a decree, within the same period after disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been
allowed from the time specified there for in the third column of the schedule.

- (2) where such person is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned
suffering from two such disabilities, or where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected
by another disability, he may institute the suit within the same period after both the
disabilities have ceased to exist, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so
specified [Third column of the schedule]

- (3) where disability is upto death – LR of the person can institute a suit – within the same
time period as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified

- (4) where LR at the date of death – suffering from Disability – can institute suit after
disability ceases to exist – within same time as would have been allowed from the time so
specified.

- (5) where person with disability dies – after disability has ceased – but within time allowed
to institute the suit - LR can institute suit – within same period after death, as otherwise
would’ve been available to the person had he not died {talks about where disability ceases
to exist, limitation period starts, but person doesn’t institute suit, as a result LR can institute
the suit, but only within remaining time.}

- For the purposes of this section, Minor includes a child in womb

S.7 – DISABILITY OF ONE OF SEVERAL PEOPLE

o where one of several persons, jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an

application for execution of decree – and discharge can be given without
concurrence of such person (person who is disabled legally), time will run against all;
o but where no such discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person –
time will not run against them – until any one of them becomes capable of giving
discharge – without concurrence of others or until disability has ceased to exist.
 Exp 1 – applies to discharge from all kinds of liability – including liability w.r.t
immovable property
 Exp. 2 – the manager of HUF governed by Mitakshara – shall be deemed to
be capable of giving discharge – without concurrence of other members of
the family only if he is managing the joint family property.

S.8 – SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

- Nothing S.6,7 shall apply to –

o suit to enforce right of pre-emption, or
o shall be deemed to extend, for more than 3 years from the cessation of the disability
or death of person affected, the period of limitation for any suit or application
 e.g. – suit for possession of immovable property, A dies with disability after
13 years, now period available to LR of A won’t be full 12 years but rather 3
years within which he may institute a suit.
S.9 – CONTINUOUS RUNNING OF TIME

- where once time has begun to run – no subsequent disability or liability – stops it
- provided that where letter of administration of estate of creditor, has been given to debtor –
the running period of limitation for a suit to recover to be suspended – while the
administration continues.

COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

Section 12 – exclusion of time in legal proceeding

 (1) in computing period of limitation for any suit, or appeal or application, the day from
which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. E.g. – decree is pronounced on 24, 24
to be excluded and period to start from 25th.
 (2) in computing period of limitation for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal or for
review/revision of judgement, the day on which the judgement complained was pronounced
– and time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, decree or sentence appealed from or
sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded
 (3) where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised/reviewed, or where an
application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of judgement shall be excluded.
 (4) in computing period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time
requisite for obtaining a copy of award shall be excluded.
o Explanation – in computing requisite time for obtaining a copy of a decree or order,
the time required by the court for preparation of the decree of order before an
application for a copy is made, shall not be excluded. E.g. – judgement or decree
pronounced on 31st January, now application for copy made on 8th February. Here
the prescribed period is to be reckoned from 1st February but since the application
for copy of order/judgement has been made on 8th February, the 7 days in between
won’t be excluded while computing the period of limitation.

Section 13 – exclusion of time in cases where leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for

 in computing period of limitation prescribed for any suit, or appeal – in case where
application to sue or appeal as a pauper has been made and rejected – the time during
which the applicant has been in good faith prosecuting his application for such leave, shall
be excluded – and court may on payment of court fees prescribed for such appeal or suit,
treat the suit or appeal as having the same force and effect as if the court fees had been paid
in first instance
Section 14 – exclusion of time proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction

 (1) in computing period of limitation for any suit – the time during which the plaintiff has
been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in court of first
instance, or appeal or revision, - against the defendant shall be excluded – where
proceedings relate to same matter in issue – and is prosecuted in good faith – in a court
which due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it
 (2) in computing period of limitation for any application – the time during which the
applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a
court of first instance, or appeal or revision, - against the same party for same relief – shall
be excluded, - where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith – in a court which from
defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
 (3) provision of sub-section (1) – shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on
permission granted by court under Rule 1 of order 2, where such permission is granted on
the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of court or by
cause of a like nature
o Explanation –
 (a) The time during which a former civil proceeding was pending – the date
on which it was instituted and the date on which it ended – to be excluded
 (b) plaintiff or applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be
prosecuting a proceeding;
 (c) misjoinder of parties or of cause of action – to be deemed as cause of a
like nature with defect of jurisdiction

Section 15 – exclusion of time in certain other cases

 (1) in computing period of limitation of any suit or application for execution of decree – the
institution or execution of which has been stayed by an injunction or order, the time of
continuance of such order, the day on which it was issued and the day on which it was
withdrawn, shall be excluded
 (2) in computing period of limitation for any suit, notice of which has been given or prior
consent from government or other authority is required, in accordance with law, the period
of such notice or time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded.
o Explanation – in time required for obtaining government consent or sanction, the
day on which application was made to the government and the day on which the
order of government was received, shall be excluded
 (3) computing period of limitation for any suit or application for execution of decree by any
receiver or interim receiver appointed in proceedings for the adjudication of a person as an
insolvent or by any liquidator or provisional liquidator, appointed in proceedings for the
winding up of a company – the period beginning with the date of institution of such
proceedings and ending with the expiry of three months from the date of appointment of
such receiver or liquidator, shall be excluded
 (4) computing of period of limitation – for a suit for possession – by a purchaser at a sale in
execution of decree – the time during which proceeding to set aside the sale has been
prosecuted – shall be excluded
  (5) computing the period of limitation for any suit – where defendant has been absent from
india and from territories outside India under the admin. Of CG – shall be excluded

Section 16 – effect of death on or before the accrual of the right to sue

 (1) where a person who if would’ve been alive have a right to institute a suit or make an
application, dies before such right accrues – or where such accrues on his death – the period
of limitation shall be computed from the time when there is a LR of the deceased capable of
instituting a suit or making such application
 (2) where a person against whom, if he were living, right to institute a suit or make an
application would’ve accrued, dies before the accrual of such right or where such right
accrues on his death, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when there is
a LR of the deceased against whom the plaintiff may institute a suit or make such application
 (3) nothing in Sub-section 1 & 2 applies to suit for enforcement of pre-emption right,
possession of immovable property or of hereditary officer.

CASE LAWS

1. SECTION 8 – EXCEPTIONS [With Regards To Non-Extension Of The Limitation Period Beyond

3 Years, From When The Disability Ceases To Exist Or Death Of Person Affected]
a. DARSHAN SINGH V. GURDEV SINGH
i. This case stated that in each case, a litigant is entitled to a fresh starting
period of limitation from the date of cessation of disability subject to the
conditions that this fresh period of limitation, extended by application of S.6
or 7, shall not exceed 3 years from the date of cessation of disability

b. KOLANDAVEL GOUNDER V. CHINAPPA

i. In this case, the combined effect of S.6, S.7 & S.8 was laid down –
1. If the disability ceases before the expiry of original period and more
than 3 years are left, then no extension of time is available
2. If the disability ceases before the expiry of original period and time
left is 3 years, then no extension of time is available
3. If disability ceases before the expiry of original period and :-
a. If the original period is more or less than 3 years – time
available is 3 years
b. If the original period is less than 3 years, then the time
available is that period
4. If disability ceases after expiry of the original period and :-
a. Original period was more than or equal to 3 years – time
available = 3 years
b. Original period less than 3 years – time available is that
period
5. If disability is not present on the day from which prescribed period is
to be reckoned i.e. day on which cause of action accrues, no
subsequent disability or inability will stop the time.
2. SPECIAL LAW
a. MP STEEL CORPORATION V. CCE
i. In a given case, if a person is a lunatic, an idiot or minor and such case is not
governed by the limitation act, then it cannot be said that S.6 will not apply
to such case. Or that such disabled person won’t be able to institute a suit
after disability has ceased.
ii. S.6 is a pointer to the fact that courts always lean in favour of advancing the
cause of justice where a clear cut case is made out for doing so.

3. S.12 – EXCLUSION OF TIME IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

a. GOPAL KRISHNA DAS V. SHAILENDRA NATH BISWAS
i. This judgement categorised delays –
1. Delay caused on part of appellant’s carelessness or negligence
cannot be considered ‘TIME REQUISITE’ and cannot be excluded.
2. On the other hand, delay caused by the office or the court, for which
the appellant is not responsible, have to be excluded as being time
requisite for obtaining of copies.

b. R. INDIRA SARATCHANDRA V. STATE OF TN

i. Although there is no prescribed period for making of an application for
certified copy of judgement and delivery thereof, but once an application is
made within the prescribed period of limitation, time spent in preparation
and supply of copy is excluded in computing period of limitation prescribed
for filing of revision or appeal.

c. INDIA HOUSE V. KISHAN N LALWANI

i. Limitation periods prescribed by special or local law must be complied with
or strictly applied, but full effect must be given to provisions, such as those
under section 12 of Limitation act, permitting relaxation or extension of such
period.
ii. Considerations of equity are no grounds for relaxing statutorily prescribed
period of limitation.

4. S.14 – EXCLUSION OF TIME PROCEEDING BONAFIDE IN COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION

a. P. SARATHY V. SBI
i. Proceedings must be in any court and not necessarily in ‘CIVIL COURT’
ii. Section 14 does not speak of a civil court but speaks only of a court. It is not
necessary that court spoken of in S.14 has to be a civil court. Any authority
or tribunal having trapping of a court would be a court within the meaning
of this section.
 b. SUNDER DAS. V. GAJANAN RAO
i. Originally suit was filed before the court with lacking pecuniary jurisdiction
and when it was re-filed before a competent court, the plaintiff were
entitled for benefit of section 14, enabling them to get exclusion of time that
was spent in prosecuting in good faith the case filed before the court with
lacking jurisdiction.

c. CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENTERPRISES V. IRRIGATION DEPT.

i. Section 14 of the act recognises bona fide mistake in selecting a wrong
forum.
ii. Legislative intent is to exempt this period.
iii. Equity underlining section 14 therefore, should be applied to its fullest
extent.

d. M.P. STEEL CORP. V. CCE

i. Exclusion of time spent in proceeding in court/forum without jurisdiction,
puts the plaintiff/applicant in same position as he was when abortive
proceedings started.

5. SECTION 15 – EXCLUSION OF TIME IN CERTAIN OTHER CASES

a. SHAKTI TUBES V. ST. OF BIHAR
i. Sixty days period of notice under S.80 of the CPC, must be excluded for the
purpose of computation of limitation.

b. ST. OF GUJARAT V. KOTHARI & ASSOCIATES

i. Exclusion of notice period in terms of, while calculating limitation period is
not relevant when the notice was issued after suit became time-barred.

6. SECTION 16 – EFFECT OF DEATH ON OR BEFORE THE ACCRUAL OF RIGHT TO SUE

a. PALANIYANDI V. MALAVARAYAN
i. Statute of limitation will not run when there is no competent person to sue
and another person capable of being sued – principle underlying section 16

b. RAJJO BIBI V. CHOTTEY LAL

i. Where in the case of mortgage by way of conditional sale, the mortgagor
dies before the date fixed for re-conveyance, his LRs would be entitled to
benefit of S.16 and the suit filed by LR within 30 years from date of attaining
majority, would be within limitation period.