INTRODUCTION

There are three broad classifications in law:

1. Substantive law, which enumerates an individuals rights and duties

2. Procedural law, which outlines the remedy and procedure to be followed when rights
are infringed, and
3. LIMITATION, the bar of time within which such remedy can be pursued

 
Limitation only bars the remedy, not the right to obtain the remedy.
The Limitation Act only restricts plaintiffs, not the defendants
 
The need for limitation:

 "Law protects those who are vigilant over their rights, not those who sleep on them."
 If a person is allowed to sue whenever they please, inordinate delays in seeking
remedies could lead to loss of documents and evidence that could otherwise help the
defence. No person can be allowed to reap the benefits of his own delay.

 
The period of limitation for a specific cause of action can be determined by referring to the
Schedule provided in the Act.  It contains three sections: description of the suit, period of
limitation and when it starts. The question of limitation is vital to determine the
maintainability of a suit.
 

 Limitation on litigant from bringing a suit:

Urvashiben v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi (2018): The SC held that the question of
limitation in a case is a mixed question of law and facts, to be decided after analysing the
evidence available [Order 14, Rule 2 CPC deals with framing of issues w.r.t facts, law, or
both].
 
Punjab National Bank v. Surendra (1992): Facts: Person A took a loan from a bank with a
guarantor G in case he defaults. G has FDs as collateral. A defaulted on his loan. However,
when the FDs matured  the period of limitation for the bank to sue had passed (3 years).
Moneysuit should have been filed at the time of default, and now it was contended that the
debt was time-barred.
It was held by the SC that the Limitation Act only bars remedy to a right, but does not
extinguish the right itself. After three years, the bank cannot file a suit, but that does not mean
that they cannot exercise any other remedy. Bank would still be eligible to realize the money.

LIMITATION AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

§467-473 CrPC [added in 1973]: deal with limitation period to take cognisance of cases for
certain offences. The Limitation Act does not apply to criminal prosecution.
Limitation does not operate for all crimes --> only those for which the punishment is three
years or less
 Japani Sahoo v. Chandrasekhar Mohanty
SC clarified that the term "cognisance" in §468 CrPC would mean date of filing of the
complaint, and not the actual stage of Court's cognisance. The rationale is that delay due to a
judge's failure to take cognisance in time should not prejudice a victim.
§468 CrPC: Bar to take cognisance when limitation period lapses

 Limitation period for offences punishable by fine only --> 6 months

 Offence punishable for 1 year or less --> 1 year
 Offences punishable for more 1 year but less than or equal to 3 years --> 3 years

Special criminal statutes can exclude the applicability of §468 CrPC and prescribe different
limitation periods (implicitly or explicitly). When the special statute is silent on the limitation
period, §468 applies [ex: Economic Offenders Act]

If in criminal prosecution, the CrPC  is silent on the limitation period for something not
covered in §468, then §29(2) of the Limitation Act will apply.
Example: §378 CrPC prescribes limitation period for appeals against acquittal and
excludes the Limitation Act. However, when a provision contains a right to appeal,
but is silent on the limitation period, §29(2) of the Limitation Act will apply.

§472 CrPC: §468 will not apply when the offence is continuing in nature [criminal breach of
trust], and nor will the Limitation Act.

§473 CrPC: Courts can condone delay in filing complaint if sufficient cause is shown -->
parallel provision to §5 of the Limitation Act [which applies for appeals and applications]
§473 is subject to provisions in special criminal laws.
For example: The limitation period when a cheque bounces is 1 month and 16 days,
beyond which delay can be condoned as per the requirements of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.

SECTION 3
" 3. Bar of limitation:
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and
application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
(2) For the purposes of this Act,—
(a) a suit is instituted,—
(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;
(ii) in the case of a pauper, when his 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 the official liquidator;
(b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been
instituted—
(i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded;
(ii) in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court;
(c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that
court. "
§3 applies to suits, appeals and applications.
Suits: plaints instituted under the CPC [According to §2(l), this does not include appeals or
applications)
Appeals: any appeal to a higher forum
Applications: any miscellaneous application arising out of a suit (eg: injunction) +
proceedings under special law
 

First Schedule of the Limitation Act

 Division I [Art. 1 to 112] : Suits

o Art. 113 is the residuary provision for any suits for which the period of
limitation is not elsewhere provided
 Division II [Art. 114 to 117] : Appeals
 Division III [Art. 118 to 136] : Applications
o Art. 137 is the residuary provision for any applications for which the period of
limitation is not elsewhere provided

General laws deal with a subject matter altogether, like the CPC, Contract Act, Indian Penal
Code, etc.
Special laws deal with a specific area, like HMA, POCSO etc.
In case of a conflict between the two, special law always prevails over general law.
Hence, if a special statute mentions a period of limitation, then it will prevail over the
Limitation Act.
If the special law does not mention any period of limitation, Art. 137 would apply.

When such a provision is made under the special law, §29(2) will apply. §3 will apply as if
the mentioned Period of Limitation was part of the Schedule. §4 to 24 will apply only if they
are not expressly barred by the special law. §3 is the general rule. §4 to 24 are the exceptions,
i.e., instances when the Court can condone the delay under the Limitation Act.

P. Radha Bai v. P Ashok Kumar (2018): An arbitral award was passed. As per §34(3) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the period to appeal was 3 months and 30 days from the
date the award is received. As per §29 of the Limitation Act, this special provision would
override the act, and any appeal made after the aforementioned time period will be dismissed.
However, in this case, the application was filed after 3 months and 30 days. It was filed under
§17 of the Limitation Act. SC held  that §4 to 24 could apply unless it was specifically
excluded by the special law.

§3(1) provides that once a suit/appeal/application is barred by limitation, the Court has to
dismiss the case. It has no discretion to condone the delay.
Even if the defence does not raise the point of limitation, the Court must dismiss it. An
appellate Court can dismiss the suit on grounds of limitation, even if it has been overlooked
by the Trial Court

The period of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. The law part can be
adjudicated at any point of the proceedings. However, for questions pertaining to the factual
matrix, §3 will not apply.
When the question of limitation is purely fact-based, and the same is not established in a trial
court, it cannot be raised in an Appellate Court.

§3(2)(b): "set off or counter claim" are treated as independent suits

  "Set-Off" is defined in Order 8, Rule 6, 8 of the CPC
o To illustrate with an example: if a claim is raised for the recovery of Rs.
10,000 and the defendant submits in their written statement that it has already
paid Rs. 5,000 of the amount [imp. to note that this is not a defence] and thus, that part
must be set-off from the claim; it is an independent suit. However, to save the
Court's time, it is heard with the original claim.
o Period of limitation for 'set-off' applies on the date it is pleaded [3 years]
o Set-off cannot be claimed when the original suit is barred by limitation
 Period of limitation for counter-claim applies on the date it is instituted in court [also
3 years]. It has no relation to the original claim in this regard.

SECTION 5
"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted 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.
Explanation— The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court
in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. "

According to §5, Courts have the (discretionary) power to condone delay in filing an appeal
or application is there is "sufficient cause." However,§5 does not apply to original suits or
execution proceedings under Order 21 of the CPC.

o execution proceedings have a limitation period of 12 years (Schedule 1, Art.

136)

What is sufficient cause?

In K. Subbarayudu & Others v/s Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), the SC
explained that "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally. When no negligence, inaction,
or want of bona fide intent is attributable, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach
in condoning the appellant's delay.

Section 4: If the period of limitation expires on a day that is a Court holiday, then the last
date to file the suit will be the next working day of the Court.

Section 141 CPC: The CPC will be applicable in all kinds of civil proceedings, but not when
it involves the writ jurisdiction of higher courts.
Similarly, the Limitation Act has no utility w.r.t writ petitions, but it can be extended to
special civil laws. In appeals relating to such special laws, §5 can apply unless expressly
provided otherwise in the statute.

If there is a special law which is silent on the period of limitation, then Art. 137 will apply, as
per §29(2).

If a period of limitation is provided in the special law, then condonation under §5 can be
applied, unless expressly disallowed.
 Example: §34 of the the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that an award can
be challenged within 3 months of its receipt, overriding Art. 137 (Schedule 1). The
proviso to §34 allows an additional 30 days of delay to be condoned, overriding §5. In
the absence of this proviso, §5 would apply, and any length of delay could have been
condoned by the Court.

Order 41, Rule 3A, Sub-rule (1), CPC

When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation (which is 3 months),
it shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to
satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for the delay.
If no application for §5 has been filed, the Court is bound to dismiss the appeal/application,
in accordance with §3.
The Court's discretion under §5 is unrestricted, subject to the provisions of §29(2)

Applicability of §5 in different kinds of Appeal and Application

 To come under §5, the applicant needs to demonstrate that he came to court with
clean hands
 Sufficient cause, i.e., a bona fide reason as to failure to appear on time needs to be
provided

Criminal Appeals: There are two kinds:-

1. Appeal against Conviction: Accused can appeal within 60 days

2. Appeal against Acquittal:
 State appeals: limitation period is 6 months (§378 IPC)
 Victim appeals, if state doesn't: (§372 IPC) No limitation given,
thus Limitation Act applies, according 60 days (Art. 115 CPC)

Intra Court Appeals: From a single judge bench to a division bench ----> 30 days [Art. 115
and 116, Limitation Act, Schedule 1]

Revision and Appeal:

o Revision: 90 days
o Appeal: 60 days

Revision is a Court's discretionary power, not a right. Appeal is a party's right.

Applications (3rd Division, First Schedule)

Order 22 CPC deals with death, marriage and insolvency of parties

 Rule 1: Party's death does not end the cause of action, if right to sue survives
 Rule 3(2): When the survivor who has the right to sue fails to exercise it within 90
days [Art. 120, Schedule-1], then the right to relief is extinguished
 Rule 4(5): When the plaintiff was ignorant of the death, they can make an application
for substituting as legal representative, within 90 days.
 For setting aside of abatement, the limitation period is 60 days [Art. 121]
 Rule 9(2) & (3): No fresh suit can be filed when it abates under this order
Ex Parte Decrees
Art. 122: if suit is dismissed on default, the new suit cannot be filed on the same cause of
action [same principle as Order 9, Rule 9]
Art. 123: Setting aside of ex parte decree -- application needs to be filed within 90 days

 Order 9, Rule 9:Plaintiff does not appear, ex parte decree for the defendant. Appeal
from an order under this rule can be filed under Order 43, Rule 1(1).
 Order 9, Rule 13:Defendant does not appear, ex parte decree for the plaintiff. Also
covers restoration application when defendant has received summons. Appeal from an
order under this rule lies under Order 43, Rule 1(d); limitation period, as per Art. 122
is 30 days
 §96(2) CPC: covers restoration application when the subject matter of an ex parte
order is challenged.
 Restoration suit: Plea to reinstate dismissed suit when matter was decided ex-parte.
Question of restoration arises when the plaintiff does not appear, but the defendant
does [Order 9, Rule 9]. The suit has to be dismissed by default. However, a new suit
cannot be filed for the same cause of action, so Order 9, Rule 9 applies. Period of
limitation is 30 days, beyond which §5 needs to be invoked.

Jaswant Singh v. Parkash Kaur (2018)

Defendant failed to appear -- suit decreed ex parte in plaintiff's favour. Thereafter, the
defendant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 to set aside the decree. However, due to
his death, he could not appear and his application was dismissed on default. His heirs filed
restoration application under Order 9, Rule 9, but do not file an appeal under Order 43, Rule
1(d)

Issue 1: Can the heirs take benefit of Order 9, Rule 9? [considering it is for original suits and
the matter at hand was a miscellaneous application] ---> whether an application made under
Order 9, Rule 9 is maintainable?
Issue 2: Will Art. 122 apply or Art. 137?

Procedural History: Trial Court dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 9. The
Appeal court overturned this decision and allowed restorative application. In revision, the HC
upheld the Trial Court verdict and the decision to dismiss the application.

In the SC: J. Bhushan interpreted §141 -- The terms of §141 apply to all civil proceedings,
unless barred by statute. Hence, the procedure for suits will also be applicable to the
miscellaneous application, because it is a civil proceeding, with no statutory bar.
The SC upheld the decision of the Appellate Court and held that a miscellaneous application
under Order 9, Rule 9 is maintainable.

However, since it is a miscellaneous proceeding, Art. 137 [residuary provision] would

apply instead of Art. 122.

Additionally, if the restoration application is not filed within 30 days, §5 can be applied.
 SECTION 6, 7 AND 8
SECTION 6
“ 6. Legal disability:
(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which
the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within
the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the
third column of the Schedule.
(2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, affected by two such disabilities, or
where, before his disability has ceased, he is affected by another disability, he may institute the suit or make the application
within the same period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.
(3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his legal representative may institute the suit or make the
application within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time so specified.
(4) Where the legal representative referred to in sub-section (3) is, at the date of the death of the person whom he represents,
affected by any such disability, the rules contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply.
(5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases but within the period allowed to him under this section,
his legal representative may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the death, as would
otherwise have been available to that person had he not died. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘minor’
includes a child in the womb. “

§6(1) provides that when a person is ‘disabled’ within the meaning of §6, his period of
limitation will not run, till such time the disability is overcome.
Ex: If a Cause of Action arises when the plaintiff is still a minor, the period of
limitation will only start when he turns major.
§6 only applies for suits and applications, not appeals (which are covered by S.5)

Precondition for §6: a person must have a cause of action to file the suit. It is an enabling
provision.

Kinds of disability protected by §6:

1. Minority: ‘minor’ under §6 also includes children in the womb.

2. Insanity
3. “Idiot”- a person in law who cannot comprehend right and wrong

The period of limitation mentioned in Schedule 1 only begins after these disabilities have
been overcome.

§6(2): Multiple disabilities and Successive periods of disability – if a person is afflicted with
another disability soon after the first, he can institute a suit or make an application after
overcoming both.
Example: When the cause of action for X arose when he was a minor, per §6(1), the
period of limitation would start the day he turns 18. However, shortly after, he goes
insane. X can then file the suit when the second disability is overcome.

If there is a significant gap between the first and second disability, §9 applies, i.e., no
subsequent disability would stop the limitation period from running
“ 9. Continuous running of time: Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to
institute a suit or make an application stops it: Provided that where letters of administration to the estate of a
creditor have been granted to his debtor, the running of the period of limitation for a suit to recover the debt
shall be suspended while the administration continues. “
§9 prevents individuals from taking advantage of §6 to extend their period of limitation till
the 2nd disability, which occurred much after the first, is overcome.

§6(3): When the person’s disability continues till death, the limitation period starts running
from his death, and the deceased’s legal heirs can institute the suit (if they have a right to sue)

§6(4): When the legal representatives, referred to in (3) are themselves disabled, the
limitation period will not run till they recover, per (1) and (2).

§6(5): When a person recovers from disability, but he dies before instituting the suit – his
legal representative(s) will only have whatever time is left, that the deceased would have had
if they had lived (since the limitation period starts running when the disability is overcome)

SECTION 7
“ 7. Disability of one of several persons:
Where one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under
any such disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but,
where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving
such discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased.
Explanation I.— This section applies to a discharge from every kind of liability, including a liability in respect of any
immovable property.
Explanation II.— For the purposes of this section, the manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law
shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without the concurrence of the other members of the family only if he is
in management of the joint family property. “
§6 is the general rule, §7 is the exception

When one of several persons who are jointly entitled to institute a suit (ex: a representative
suit) suffers from a disability, the suit cannot be filed until such person relinquishes his claim
(“discharges”)

 If the discharge is given, the limitation period will run per usual against the rest of
them
 If the discharge is not given, the limitation period will run only when the disability is
gone. Meanwhile, the others cannot file the suit

SECTION 8
“8. Special exceptions:
Nothing in section 6 or in section 7 applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emption, or shall be deemed to extend, for more
than three years from the cessation of the disability or the death of the person affected thereby, the period of limitation for
any suit or application. ”
§6 and §7 do not apply to a suit to enforce rights of re-emption.
Suit of re-emption: First offer to purchase the land to the neighbouring land owner at
market price should be given. A violation of this can lead to a suit for enforcement of
right of pre-emption by the person who is denied. Applying §6 or §7 here would harm
the rights of the party wanting to sell the land

Part III: Computation of  period of limitation [§12 to §24]

§12 to 15 --> excludes certain period in computing limitation period
§16 to 24 --> date from which a fresh limitation period runs
 SECTION 12 AND 14

SECTION 12
" 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings:
(1) 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.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a
judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the
decree, sentence or order 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 or reviewed, or where an application is made for leave
to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment 1[***] shall also be excluded.
(4) In computing the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the award shall be excluded. Explanation.—In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a
decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made
shall not be excluded. "

§12(1): Suppose the Cause of Action arises on January 1st, limitation period starts from
January 2nd (the day on which it is triggered is excluded)

§12(2), (3) and (4): When computing the limitation period for an appeal, leave to appeal,
application or revision, the time that is required to obtain the certified copy of the impugned
order/decree/judgement is excluded.
For example: If the period of limitation to file an appeal is 90 days and the court takes
10 days to deliver the certified copy of the decree --> the 90 day period begins after
those 10 days a decree,

However, the time taken to get the decree (not its certified copy) is included in the Period of
Limitation

Side note:

 When the statute does not provide an inherent right to appeal the Court's permission
needs to be taken in order to appeal, known as the Leave to Appeal
 Revision: challenge to correctness of a decree in a higher court [§115 CPC/Art. 227 of
the Constitution]
 Review: challenge in the same Court (§47 CPC)

SECTION 14
"14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction:
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due
diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be
excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and 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.
(2) In computing the 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 of appeal or revision, against the same party for
the 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the
provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1
 of that Order where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the
jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,—
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was
instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction. "
§14(1):If the plaintiff bona fide approaches a Court for a suit, appeal or revision; but such
Court lacks jurisdiction, the time wasted by plaintiff in doing so is excluded from the
limitation period.

§14(2): If the plaintiff approaches a Court of First Instance or an Appellate Court with an
application, without realising that such Court lacks jurisdiction, the time wasted in this regard
will be excluded from the limitation period.

§14(3): When a suit is filed by a plaintiff in a Court without jurisdiction, and the Court allows
him to withdraw under §14(1), Order 23, Rule 2 CPC will not be applicable.

Order 23, Rule 1 provides that when a suit is withdrawn, one can take the Court's leave to file
a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Rule 2 provides that the limitation period for the suit
will apply as if the withdrawn suit never existed.

Differences between §5 and §14: §5 bestows a discretionary power on the court, guided by
judicial pronouncements. On the other hand, §14 encapsulates a litigant's rights.

Scope of §14:

1. Both prior and subsequent suits are civil proceedings instituted by the same party and
same cause of action
2. Good faith and due diligence in prior case. Good faith is defined in §2(h): ""good faith”—
nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention "
3. Failure of prior proceeding was due to lack of jurisdiction of "like" cases [see §14(3)]

Applicability of §14 to special laws, when limitation period is given: Special laws
override the Limitation Act in general. For example: §34 of the Arbitration Act does not
expressly or implicitly exclude the application of §14 of the Limitation Act, and hence it will
be applicable [even though §5 will be inapplicable, as established previously].

Limitation Act and Quasi-Judicial Bodies (like Tribunals): Quasi-judicial bodies are
created by Special Laws, so generally, the Limitation Act will not apply.
However, §14 will apply as long as the Special Act does not specifically bar its application,
as long as the applicant approached the wrong forum in good faith.
Cases to refer:

 M/s Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary

(Irrigation Department)
 MP Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise
 SECTION 15
" 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases:
(1) In computing the period of limitation of any suit or application for the execution of a decree, the institution or execution
of which has been stayed by injunction or order, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it
was issued or made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any suit of which notice has been given, or for which the previous consent or
sanction of the Government or any other authority is required, in accordance with the requirements of any law for the time
being in force, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall
be excluded.
Explanation.—In excluding the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other
authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the
order of the Government or other authority shall both be counted.
(3) In computing the period of limitation for any suit or application for execution of a 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 proceeding and ending with the expiry of three months from the date of appointment of such receiver or liquidator, as
the case may be, shall be excluded.
(4) In computing the period of limitation for a suit for possession by a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, the time
during which a proceeding to set aside the sale has been prosecuted shall be excluded.
(5) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the defendant has been absent from India and
from the territories outside India under the administration of the Central Government, shall be excluded. "
§15(1): Extension of limitation period can be given to litigant when he is prevented from
coming to court at the right time. If he is precluded by an injunction or Court order in a
separate proceeding, the limitation period resumes on the day the final order is made in the
case and it is disposed

This applies only w.r.t original suits or execution proceedings under Order 12 CPC. Does not
apply for appeals.

Examples:

1. A files a suit and gets a decree in his favour. Defendant prefers an appeal and
execution is stayed in the interim. Appeal runs for 20 years. Period of Limitation for
execution, according to Art. 136 is 12 years. Appeal is decided in A's favour but
defendant refutes execution on the grounds that it is barred by limitation --> §15(1)
can be invoked
2. A takes a loan to purchase some property and keeps it mortgaged. A fails to pay. The
bank files a suit for specific performance. Decree passed in favour of the bank that
they are entitled to money interest. A still cannot pay. The Court orders A's property
to be auctioned. A third-party buys it and the Court issues a sale order in their favour.
According to Limitation Act, the property must be delivered to the third party in
one year [Art. 134]

--> A challenges the auction in a higher court. This causes delay in delivery to the
third-party. In such a case, under Order 21, Rule 95, the third party has to file an
application to get the property delivered and the period of limitation for this is one
year [Art. 134], calculated from the day the 'sale is absolute' [when he procures a
certificate under Order 21, Rule 94]. Such a delay can also be condoned by §15(1)
 United Finance Corp. v. MSM Haneefa [2017]
Facts: Property is auctioned after a suit is decreed in favour UFC. Two applications are made
against the auction:

1. For the commissioner to estimate the value of the property

2. To set aside the order for auction

Procedural History: Court rejects applications. MSM files for revision in the HC, which
sends the matter to the Trial court after deciding. UFC filed an application under Order 21,
Rule 95 [to have the property delivered, 1 year limitation]. HC and Trial Court state that the
suit is time-barred.

The SC on appeal said that no sale is absolute under Order 21, Rule 94 until all the
proceedings related to it are terminated, and a final order is passed

Note:

 Sale in execution of decree: Sale becomes absolute and termination of proceedings

initiated to set  aside order of confirmation of sale as per Order 21, Rule 92(1) CPC,
not a mere passing of such confirmation order
 Application under Order 21, Rule 95: limitation period for an application under Order
21 Rule 95 CPC for the delivery of possession of property to a purchaser starts from
the date of confirmation and not from the date of issuance of sale certificate under
Order 21
 On failure of auction: purchaser to avoid the said quick remedy, the law relegates him
to the remedy of a regular suit for possession, subject to the prescribed limitation
period
o refer Balakrishna v. Malaiyandi Konar [2006]

§15(2): In computing the limitation period for a suit when notice has to be served, or sanction
or consent is required, the time required to obtain the consent or notice served will be
excluded.
However, the date the application is made and the date the sanction is obtained will be
counted.
Example: Refer 60 days’ notice in §80 CPC

§15(3): In computing the limitation period for a suit/application for execution, any time spent
in the interim for appointment of a liquidator/receiver or adjudication of insolvency, or in
other similar proceedings will be excluded.

§15(4): 2 conditions need to be met to obtain an order under §15(4)

a) the suit is for possession by the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree
b) it should be suit, not an application

 Order 21, Rule 90 CPC: When process of auction is challenged and proceedings
are stayed by a higher court.
 §15(4) says that if the sale is challenged in a suit by a person affected by the sale,
and they obtain a stay on the execution of the auction, or the suit is disposed, then
the time period of the suit and/or the stay will be excluded while calculating the
 limitation period for the party who obtained the property through auction to file an
execution proceeding
o limitation period in Art. 65, explanation (c) [Schedule 1 of LA]

§15(5): Any Indian natural person, if not within India when the cause of action arises --> the
period of absence is excluded from the limitation period [does not apply w.r.t juristic persons,
like companies]

SECTION 16 AND 17
When an application is made under §16, 17 or 18, the same must be properly pleaded in the
plaint, as per Order 7, Rule 6
SECTION 16
" 16. Effect of death on or before the accrual of the right to sue:
(1) Where a person who would, if he were living, have a right to institute a suit or make an application dies before the right
accrues, or where a right to institute a suit or make an application accrues only on the death of a person, the period of
limitation shall be computed from the time when there is a legal representative of the deceased capable of instituting such
suit or making such application.

(2) Where a person against whom, if he were living, a right to institute a suit or make an application would have accrued dies
before the right accrues, or where a right to institute a suit or make an application against any person accrues on the death of
such person, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when there is a legal representative of the deceased
against whom the plaintiff may institute such suit or make such application.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emption or to suits for the possession
of immovable property or of a hereditary office. "
§16(1): Who can file?
When a cause of action persists, but the person concerned is dead, then his heirs will take
over [not applicable for appeals].

What if limitation period has expired? --> two situations:

a) Right to sue arises after person's death: limitation period is counted from the day a
legal representative [§2(11) CPC] has stepped into the shoes of the deceased
Example: There is a temple and someone does unauthorised construction
there. All trustees died, leaving no legal representatives on their behalf. 12
years later, new trustees are appointed. They file a suit against construction
and to vacate. §16(1) may be invoked. In the absence of administration, no one
could have filed the suit. Limitation period starts after the appointment of the
new trustees.
b) When cause of action arises on the date of litigant's death
Example: Consider a will. A will comes into force on the day of death. Now
someone else makes a claim on inherited property - it's converted to a
succession suit. In this case, from the death till the suit is settled, Court
appoints an administrator to look after the property. W.r.t limitation, if
someone trespasses etc., limitation period is computed after there is a legal
representative.
§16(2): Against whom?
Example: In the case of a landlord and tenant --> if the tenant dies, his heirs will have
to enter into a new tenancy agreement w the landlord, which must be done in 5 years.
If after 5 years, a fresh agreement is not made, the landlord can file for eviction. The
limitation period would run from the date of the death.

When the defendant dies before the suit is instituted, or the right to sue accrues on such death,
the limitation period is computed from when the legal representative steps into the shoes of
the deceased.

SECTION 17
" 17. Effect of fraud or mistake:
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person
as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from
him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or
could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the
applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production: Provided that nothing in
this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set
aside any transaction affecting, any property which—

(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did
not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the
mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to
the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of
limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the
period for execution of the decree or order: Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the
discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be. "

§17(1):When you have a cause of action but you're not aware due to fraud or mistake, the law
excuses you. Period of limitation starts running from when such fraud or mistake comes to
your knowledge.
proviso: Innocent 3rd party not affected
Example: A person has three sons & before death, he made a will and divided the
property among them equally. The third son is absent while dividing it and the other
two sons fraudulently divide it among themselves. If the third brother discovers this,
he has a cause of action.
However, if they sell the land to someone who buys it in good faith, with no knowledge of
the fraud, a suit brought against them will not attract §17.

§17(2): When by use of fraud or force, a judgement-debtor has prevented a judgement-

creditor from executing a decree, beyond the limitation period of 12 years, the Court may
extend the limitation period on an application by the latter, provided such an application is
made within a year after the fraud is discovered, or the force ceases.
 SECTION 18 AND 19

SECTION 18
" 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing:
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit of application in respect of any property or right, an
acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom
such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation
shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was
signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be
received.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that
the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver,
perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to
the property or right;
(b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property
or right. "

§18(1): Before the expirationof the limitation period for a suit or application [inapplicable for
appeals], w.r.t some property or a right; if an acknowledgement of liability w.r.t such
property or right is made in writing, signed by the party from whom the liability is derived,
then a fresh limitation period starts running from the date of such acknowledgement.

§18(2): When the acknowledgement is not dated, oral evidence may be taken into account,
only w.r.t the date, but not w.r.t the contents of the acknowledgement [subject to the
provisions of the Evidence Act].
§18 is based on a situation where the defendant admits his liability before the limitation
period for the original suit has expired. Such an admission must be signed by the defendant or
his authorised agent.
Here, 'acknowledgement' means admission.

What is admission?
Admissions are statements made against a party's own interests [dealt with under §17-23 of
the Evidence Act]. §58 of the Evidence Act provides that when a fact is "admitted" no
evidence is required to prove the same.
Example: Under Order 9, Rule 8 CPC, the Court can dismiss a suit for default due to non-
appearance of the plaintiff, unless the defendant appears and admits to the claims in the plaint

Even evasive denial or the defendant's silence in a written statement amounts to admission

§18, Explanation (c): §18 does not apply for an execution proceeding under Order 21

Nature, Scope and Objective of §18: Prabhakar v. M. Pillai [2006]

An acknowledgement under this provision may be made in reference to all suits involving
property or a right for which limitation period is prescribed. This is the case since rights and
obligations of a party are correlative with the corresponding obligations of the other
Acknowledgement in writing: Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Coop.
Marketing [2004]
The acknowledgement in writing must clearly indicate the existence of a jural (legal)
relationship between the parties (ex: creditor and debtor) --> construed liberally
Once such admission to the jural relationship is made, along with the liability, it is immaterial
if it is accompanied by an assertion that nothing therein would make the person liable payable

Unqualified acknowledgement:Even an unqualified acknowledgement causes a fresh

limitation period to begin and gives a plaintiff cause of action to base his claims on.

Syndicate Bank v. Veerana [2003]: V took a loan from the bank and failed to pay it back.
Bank filed a suit for recovery. V argued that the debt was time-barred. SC held that the sale
deed of his property which mentions the loan was an unqualified acknowledgement of the
jural relationship and gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Thus, not barred by limitation.

SECTION 19
" 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy:
Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the
person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be
computed from the time when the payment was made:
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the
payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be
deemed to be a payment;
(b) “debt” does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court. "
When before the limitation period for a debt or its interest payable expires, the debtor makes
part payment of the debt or its interest, a fresh limitation period will be computed from the
date of such payment. Here, the payment becomes an act of acknowledgement.
§18 is a more explicit admission, while §19 is implicit. However, it is necessary that an
acknowledgement of such payment, is made in writing.

 Where mortgaged land is in possession of the debtor. the receipt of rent shall be
deemed payment

'debt' in §19 does not include money payable in execution of a decree

SECTION 20 AND 21
SECTION 20
" 20. Effect of acknowledgment or payment by another person:
(1) The expression “agent duly authorised in this behalf” in sections 18 and 19 shall, in the case of a person under disability,
include his lawful guardian, committee or manager or an agent duly authorised by such guardian, committee or manager to
sign the acknowledgment or make the payment.
(2) Nothing in the said sections renders one of several joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees chargeable by
reason only of a written acknowledgment signed by, or of a payment made by, or by the agent of, any other or others of
them.
(3) For the purposes of the said sections,—
 (a) an acknowledgment signed or a payment made in respect of any liability by, or by the duly authorised agent of, any
limited owner of property who is governed by Hindu law, shall be a valid acknowledgment or payment, as the case may be,
against a reversioner succeeding to such liability; and
(b) where a liability has been incurred by, or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family as such, an acknowledgment or payment
made by, or by the duly authorised agent of, the manager of the family for the time being shall be deemed to have been made
on behalf of the whole family. "
§20(1): 'Agent' in §18-19 will include a guardian, committee or agent appointed by guardian
only when the party suffers from a legal disability, per §6.

§20(2): 'Agent' in §18-19 does not include joint contractors, partners, executors or
mortgagees, unless specifically authorised.

SECTION 21
" 21. Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant:
(1) Where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be
deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party:
Provided that where the court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made
in good faith it may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any
earlier date.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a case where a party is added or substituted owing to assignment or devolution
of any interest during the pendency of a suit or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant is made a plaintiff. "
This section is read with Order 1, Rule 10 (deals with suits in the name of wrong plaintiff)

Proper and Necessary Parties [cross reference CPC notes]

 State of Assam v. Union of India: A necessary party is one without whom no order can
be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be
made, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the questions
involved.
 Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Centre: If a necessary party is not
included/impleaded, the suit is dismissed. This does not apply for proper parties. If a
person falls under neither category, Court cannot include him as a party against the
plaintiff's wishes. The Court has the discretion to decide who is the proper party

Relief can only be claimed from necessary parties: Order 1, Rule 10 provides for
substitution of a party as plaintiff when the Court comes to know that a wring person has
been added as plaintiff, or the correctness of their status is in doubt. If the Court believes such
error is bona fide, it may at any stage order any person to be added/substituted as plaintiff

Role of §21:
(1) when a party is added or substituted at a later stage of a suit, then the limitation
period as against the new party will commence from the day they are so
added/substituted.

Example: Limitation period for a suit is 3 years and it was it was instituted in time. Later
another party is added/substituted. Limitation period will act on this new party from the date
of addition/substitution. However, a party cannot be added after the limitation period expires.
Thus, to avail §21(1), the substitution/addition must be done before the limitation period of
the original suit expires.
Proviso: Court may use its discretion to add/substitute a new party even after the limitation
period expires, if the Court finds that a wrong party was added/right party was left out due to
a genuine, bona fide error. In such a case, the Court would deem that the party has joined
from an earlier date [legal fiction]

(2) Exceptions to §21(1): No application when --

 defendant is made plaintiff or vice versa

 the original party dies and the legal representative asks to be substituted
 person gets a new right

COURT FEES ACT

Each state has its own Court Fees Act. This part is limited to the WB Court Fees Act, 1970.

SECTION 2
(1) "appeal" includes a cross-objection;
(2) "Collector" includes any officer not below the rank of a Sub-Deputy Collector appointed
by the Collector to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act;
(3) "Court" means any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal or other
authority having jurisdiction under any local or special law to decide questions affecting the
rights of parties;

SECTION 4
If a document is chargeable with fees, it cannot be filed, recorded or exhibited by any Courts
or any public officers unless the chargeable fee has been paid.
Exceptions:
1) in a Criminal trial, this may be ignored at the Court's discretion
2) this does not apply to cases where the State Government acts as a party

SECTION 5
When there is a difference of opinion on the amount payable for a document, between a
Court officer and a party, it is settled by the Taxing Officer (a.k.a Stamp Reporter) in the HC,
appointed by the Chief Justice of the HC. His decision is subject to revision, if an application
is made within 60 days to the CJHC, or any other authorised judge.

SECTION 6
The stamp (proof of payment of Court fees) bought in one state will not be applicable in any
other state. I.e., a document would be inadmissible unless fees is collected by stamp
purchases in the State (here, West Bengal)

SECTION 7 [COMPUTATION OF FEES]

Amount of fees payable is computed on the basis of one's valuation of relief, read in
consonance with the Suit Valuation Act
(i) Money suits (damages, compensation, arrears of maintenance, etc) : the fee is computed
according to the amount claimed
The court fees w.r.t the principal amount is ascertained. For any interest computed and given
by the Court (§34 CPC), the Court determines its fees w.r.t pendente lite (during the
litigation) interest (ad valorum court fees). Plaintiff can enjoy his interest only after the
payment of the ad valorum Court fees
Exception: no fees need to be paid for defamation suits

(ii) Suits for maintenance or other periodically paid sums : the Court fees would be ten times
the sum payable in a year.
Exception: for maintenance suits filed by widows, the Court fees is only the sum
payable for a year.

(iii) Suits for moveable property (other than money) which have a market value : Court fees
is computed according to the value of the property on the date the plaint is filed.

(iv) Suits for --

a) moveable property without market value (ex: title deed)
b) declaratory decree or order with consequential relief
c) injunction
d) easement, i.e., right to some benefit arising out land (which has not been covered
otherwise)
e) accounts
The fee is determined according to an estimate amount of relief provided by the plaintiff.
subject to §11

(v) Suits for possession of land or buildings [not being the suits referred to in (iv)]: general rule
a) the Court fees is computed according to the value of the land, where such value is
deemed to be fifteen times the amount of profit accrued from the property over the
course of the year preceding the filing of the plaint. If the Court believes the profits to
be wrongly estimated, the fees would be fifteen times the amount the Court assesses
or according to the market value of the land, whichever is lower.
b) when the Court opines that the profit is not ascertainable /assessable, or no profits
exist, the fee is computed according to the market value of the property.

(vi) In suits for recovery of possession of immoveable property from a: special cases
a) trespasser: Court fees is computed according to the amount of relief sought in the
plaint (only when there is no prayer or necessity for a declaration of title to dispose
the suit)
b) licensee when his license has been terminated/revoked:
i. if there is a license fee, the court fee is computed according to the license fee
payable for the next year, before the plaint has been presented
ii. if there is no license fee, the court fee is computed according to the relief
claimed

(vii)Suits to enforce a right of pre-emption : Court fee is computed according to the market
value of the land, building or garden w.r.t which the right is claimed 

(viii)Suits for partition/separation of joint property or for the enforcement of a right to a share
in any joint property : if the plaintiff has been excluded from possession of the property of
which he is coparcener or co-owner, Court fee is computed according to the market value of
the share, in respect of which the right is claimed.

(ix) Suits for the interest of an assignee of land-revenue : Court fees is computed as fifteen
times his net profits for the year next before the plaint has been presented;

(x) Suits to set aside an attachment of land or of an interest in land or revenue: Court fees is
computed according to the amount for which the land or interest was attached;
Exception: Provided that, where such amount exceeds the value of the land or interest,
the amount of fee shall be computed as if the suit were for the possession of such land
or interest;

(xi)Suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged, to foreclose;
and in suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, or where the mortgage is made by
conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute:
Court fees is computed according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the
instrument of mortgage

(xii)Suits for specific performance of a :

a) contract of sale: Court fees is computed according to the amount of the consideration,
b) contract of mortgage: Court fees is computed according to the amount agreed to be
secured,
c) contract of lease: Court fees is computed according to the aggregate amount of the
fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the
term,
d) an award: Court fees is computed according to the amount or value of the property in
dispute

(xiii) The following suits between a landlord and tenant :

a) for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of a lease,
b) to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy,
c) for the delivery by a landlord of a lease,
d) for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over
after the determination of a tenancy,
e) to contest a notice of ejectment,
f) to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been
illegally ejected by the landlord, and
g) for abatement of rent—
Court fee is computed according to the amount of the rent on the immovable property
payable for the year next before the date the plaint is presented.

SECTION 10 [INSUFFICIENT COURT FEES IS PAID]

(1) In every suit/appeal where court fee is payable, a date will be fixed for the appearance of
the opposite party after payment and before the judgement is passed, the Court needs to
inquire and record if sufficient fees was paid.

(2) If the amount is found to be insufficient:

a) the Court may stay all further proceedings till the proper amount is determined and paid,
 Exception: if the plaintiff/appellant gives security to assure the Court of payment of
any additional amount they may be liable for, within the stipulated time, the Court
may proceed with the suit,
b) Court will fix a date before which the plaintiff or appellant has to pay the fee due, as
determined in clause (a).
(3) If the plaintiff/appellant fails to give the security determined in (a); or pay the amount
determined in (b) within the time stipulated, the suit shall be dismissed.

SECTION 11 [INQUIRY OF VALUATION]

If the Court believes that the subject-matter of a suit has been incorrectly valued, it may
revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold an inquiry for the
same, as it deems fit

SECTION 12 [INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN PROPER VALUATION]

(1) For an inquiry under §11, the Court may depute or issue a commission to any suitable
person to carry out necessary investigation and report back to the Court, with evidence. This
report and any evidence recorded, will be evidence in the inquiry.

(2) The Court may direct the plaintiff/appellant ti deposit a sum as it deems reasonable, as the
cost of the inquiry. If the costs are not deposited within the time stipulated by the Court, it
dismiss the suit

SECTION 13 [POWER OF PERSONS MAKING INQUIRY UNDER §11

AND §12 ]

(1) The Court has the following powers in this regard:

a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or affirmation;
b) compelling the production of documents and other evidence; and
c) issuing commissions to examine witnesses.

(2) Such an inquiry will be a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of §193 and §228 IPC.

SECTION 16 [DECISION OF QUESTIONS AS TO VALUATION]

(1) Every question relating to valuation for determining payment of Court fees on a plaint or
appeal shall be decided by the Court, and the decision would be binding on the other parties.

(2) When such a question arises before a Court of Appeal/Review or Revision, and it finds
that the Trial Court incorrectly valued the suit, then the party  will be required to pay any
additional fee to compensate:
a) if payer is the appellant or petitioner, §10(2) and (3) will apply;
b) if the payer is the respondent §10(2) will apply. If the payment is not made by the
stipulated date, the Court shall recover the same as public demand (i.e., via the Bengal
Public Demands Recover Act, 1913)
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section a question relating to the classification under
§7 will not be deemed a question relating to valuation.

 If an appeal or plaint which was rejected by a lower Court is ordered to be received

OR a suit is remanded in appeal, in accordance with Order 41, Rule 23, then the
 Appellate Court shall grant the appellant a certificate, authorising him to collect a full
refund of the Court fees paid on the memo of appeal
 When the remand in appeal is for some/one of the issues and does not cover the entire
subject matter, the certificate granted shall authorise not more than what was
originally payable for the remanded parts.

SECTION 23 [EXEMPTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM BEING

CHARGEABLE WITH ANY FEES]
§23(i) to (xviii) provides a list of 18 exempted documents (not important to know all

§23(ii) No fees chargeable on the written statement which is called for by the Court after the
first hearing.
However, Court fees will be charged when the written statement in question is in response to
a set-off counterclaim

SCHEDULE I: CALCULATION OF AD VALORUM FEES

Apart from a table of fixed ad valorum fees, Schedule-1 also contains a table of rates of ad
valorum fees, leviable on the institution of the suit.
When the valuation of a subject matter lies between two specified amounts, the table
mentions a corresponding proper fee to be paid.

This goes on till

Rs. 20,000 < valuation < Rs. 20,500  -------->  proper fees = Rs. 3262.50

After the fee exceeds Rs. 37.50 for every Rs. 5000 (in valuation), till a maximum limit of Rs.
10,000 proper fees

SCHEDULE II: FIXED COURT FEES FOR SOME MENTIONED

PETITIONS