LAW OF LIMITATION

The Limitation Act, 1963

 INTRODUCTION

What does limitation means?

◦ The word ‘limitation’ in its literal term means “a restriction”

What does law of limitation provide for?

◦ The law of limitation prescribes the time-limit within which the suits or proceedings for

the redressal of the right are to be filed by the aggrieved person.

◦ In other words, it prescribes time period for barring legal actions.

Procedural or Substantive law?

The law of limitation is a part of procedural law as

it provides the procedure for obtaining a decision in
accordance with the substantive law.
It is an adjective law. - Function of an adjective law
is to facilitate justice and further its end.
 Object of Law of Limitation
What is the object of law of limitation?

The law of limitation is based on two legal maxims:

1. ‘interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium’, which means that it is in the

interest of the state that that there should be an end to litigation.

2. ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt’ which means the

law assists the vigilant and not one who sleeps over his rights.
 Whether the law of limitation bars the remedy or the right?

As a general rule, law of limitation only bars the judicial remedy but does not extinguish
the right.
The right continues to exist even through remedy is barred by limitation. Therefore, a
debtor may pay the time barred debt and cannot claim it back on the plea that it was
barred by limitation. Extra Legal remedies are still available to parties.
It only bars the judicial remedy to get a redressal for the right. Extra judicial remedies are
still available to the person whose claim is barred by limitation.
The substantive right survives and continues to be available if there are other ways or
means to enforce it.
For example-
If a debtor owes several debts to a creditor, some of which
are barred by limitation and the debtor makes a payment of
some amount without specifications and the creditors
adjusts the amount against the time barred debts,
the debtor cannot object nor he can claim back the amount
on the ground that such debts were time barred and the
creditor could not have recovered the same.
 Exception to the General Rule
Exception – Section 27- Extinguishment of right to
property.—
At the determination of the period hereby limited to
any person for instituting a suit for possession of any
property, his right to such property shall be
extinguished.
If the rightful owner does not institute any suit for recovery of possession
within a period prescribed for such suit for recovery of possession (i.e. 12 years
from the date of dispossession),
 then the right of the said rightful owner is extinguished and the person in
wrongful possession shall acquire title over it.
Section 27 only applies to persons who are out of possession and seeks to
recover possession.
Section 27 is actually based on the principle of prescription.
Section 27 is not merely procedural but substantial. Section 27 extinguishes
the title of the rightful owner.
 Limitation does not bar defence

Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshiv. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi,

(2002) 3 SCC 676
The Supreme Court held that - Limitation Act does not extinguish a
defence, but only bars the remedy.
 For Example
A (Buyer), in December 2016, entered into an agreement to sell the immovable property
with B (Seller) for a consideration of 20 lacs to be payable by A to B as consideration of sale
and the sale deed was agreed to be executed on January 27, 2017.
Possession of the property was transferred by B (Seller) to A (Buyer) in part performance
of the contract and A paid 5 lacs in advance.
Later B did not execute (refused to execute) the sale deed. A could have filed the suit for
specific performance of the contract within three years from January 27, 2017.
(Note: Article 54- Period of limitation is 3 years from the date fixed for the performance,
or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.)
A did not file such suit within the prescribed period (until 2020) and there for the suit
became time barred.
Now B filed a suit in the court for recovery of possession of the
property from A which was so transferred by him to A in part
performance of the contract of sale.
Here A (defendant) may protect his possession under Section 53-A
of the TPA. 1882 by taking the plea in defence that the possession
was transferred to him in part performance of the contract.
Though he may not be able to enforce that right by way of a suit
as the same was time barred.
So limitation bars the remedy to enforce the right but does not
bars the defence which can be taken in a suit.
 Plea of Limitation: Duty of the Court
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963
◦ “Every suit instituted, every appeal preferred and application made after
the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although the limitation has not
been set up as a defence.”
◦ The court is duty bound to dismiss the suit/appeal/application if filed or
preferred after the period of limitation suo motu even though the
defendant/respondent has not taken such a plea- that the suit/appeal is
barred by limitation.
◦ Setting up of plea of limitation in defence is not necessary.
◦ Limitation affects the jurisdiction of the court to try or entertain the
suit/appeal.
 Period of Limitation and Prescribed Period- Section 2 (j)
“Period of limitation” means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or
application by the Schedule,
E.g. “Period of limitation” in a suit for specific performance is 3 years from the due date of
performance.
 “prescribed period” means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the
provisions of this Act;
In such suit for specific performance, prescribed period would the computation of such
period of 3 years.
Part –III Computation of period- According to rules laid down in Sections 12-24 of the
Limitation Act.
E.g. - Sections 12-15 Limitation Act, 1963 excludes certain time for calculation of period of
limitation.
 For Example
In computing the period of limitation- certain time period is to be excluded-
The day on which the judgment/order/decree was pronounced shall be excluded in
computing the period of limitation. (S.12, Limitation Act)
The time spent in obtaining copy of such decree/order shall be excluded. (S.12,
Limitation Act)
The time spent in prosecuting an application to sue as an indigent person shall be
excluded. (S.13, Limitation Act).
In cases where previous sanction of the government before filing the suit is required, the
time required for taking such consent shall be excluded while computing the period of
limitation. Also the date on which the application was made and the date on which such
order granting sanction was received shall be excluded. (S.15, Limitation Act)
In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the
day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. (S. 12,
Limitation Act, 1963).

For example - In a suit for specific performance of contract -

The date of performance mentioned (January 27, 2017) in the agreement

will be the date for reckoning the period of limitation of three years and
that date has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for three
years which is the period of limitation for filing such a suit.
 Expiry of period of limitation when the court is closed-
Section 4

Section 4 - Where the prescribed period for any suit,

appeal or application expires on a day when the court is
closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted,
preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens.
 Condonation of Delay- Section 5

Under Section 5- Delay in filing an appeal or any application (not a

suit), can be condoned after the prescribed period -
◦ if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had
“sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the
application within such period.”
 Condonation of Delay- Exception to the General Rule.
General Rule- Section 3 contains the General rule- Suit /appeal/application
filed after expiration of limitation period shall be dismissed.
The rule is absolute and unqualified with regard to filing of suit. (Only
exception-Extension of time only under S. 4- Court closed.) No provision for
condonation of delay in filing a suit.
S. 5 does not apply to application made under Order 21, CPC relating to
execution. (Reason- Longer period is provided for filing execution application-
12 years).
Section 5 applies to both civil as well as criminal appeals/applications.
 What is Sufficient Cause?
The expression ‘Sufficient cause’ -not defined.
The courts have construed it liberally so as to advance the cause of justice.
Condoning the delay - a discretionary power of the court – to be exercised judiciously and
not arbitrarily.
Whether there is a sufficient cause or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.
The Court need to decide each and every case, on the basis of facts and circumstances,
whether there is a sufficient cause or not and the party seeking condonation of delay has
satisfactorily established it to the satisfaction of the court or not.
 Basawraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14
SCC 81

Held that-
“Normally when a party approaches a court of law with grievance
should not be deprived of hearing the matters on merits, unless
there is something to show that there was total inaction, gross
negligence …on his part.”
 H. Dohil Constructions Co (p) Ltd. v. Nahar Exports
Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 680
Gross Negligence

In case of gross negligence on part of the Appellant – the court may not condoned the
delay.

Delay of 9 days without payment of court fees- court returned the MOA for rectifying
the defect- The MOA was again refiled after 5 years- and the HC Condoned the delay.

SC set aside observing gross negligence and dismissed the appeal as time barred.
 In Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold
and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen
is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why
not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against
each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other
side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a
non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on

account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does
not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
 The Food Corporation Of India vs M/S Vishnu Sugar
Mills Limited on 24 October, 2019
“In showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the party may be asked
to explain the delay for the whole period covered by the period between the last day prescribed
for filing the appeal and the day on which the appeal is filed.

But as held by the Supreme Court in LA, Anantnag v. Katiji , "Every day's delay must be
explained" does not mean that a pedantic (excessively concerned with minor details) approach
should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied
in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.”
 Dinesh Bhai Ramesh Bhai Minama v. State of
Gujarat (2018) SCC 2610

Held that:-

“Sufficient cause for not making application within the period of limitation”
should be applied in a reasonable and liberal manner depending upon the
facts and circumstances of the case following which substantial justice shall be
advanced when the delay has not been due to the negligence on the part of
the applicant.
 Illustrative Circumstances in which delay is
condoned
Imprisonment of the party
Illness of the person filing the appeal/application – depends on nature and
severity of disease.
Mistaken advice given by Counsel – mistake committed in computing the
limitation period.
Party-Pauper/Illiterate

This list is not exhaustive. Sufficient cause is to be decided on case to case

basis.
Thank you