Bar of Limitation under Limitation Act

Introduction
 The law of limitation finds its roots in the maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium which means that in
the interest of the state as a whole there should be a limit to litigation and vigilantibus non dormientibus
Jura subveniunt which means the law will assist only those who are vigilant with their rights and not those
who sleep upon it.
 The Limitation Act, 1963 (Act hereafter) prescribes different periods of limitation for filing of suits, appeals
or applications.
 The statute of limitation are statutes of repose because they extinguish stale demands and quiet titles.
 They secure peace by ensuring the security of rights and justice as by lapse of time, evidence may get destroyed.
Object of the Act
 The Law of limitation prescribes a time period within which a right can be enforced in a Court of Law.
o The time period for various suits has been provided under the schedule of the Act.
 The main purpose of this Act is to prevent litigation from being dragged for a long time and to quickly
dispose of cases which leads to effective and easy litigation and disposal of cases.
Period of Limitation
 Section 2(j) of the Act defines the period of limitation and prescribed period.
o Period of limitation refers to the time period which is prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the
Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.
o The prescribed period is the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
 Section 3 of the Act describes the Bar of limitation as 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 defense.
When Period of Limitation Starts
 The time from which the period of limitation begins depends on the case's subject matter, and a specific
starting point of such period is provided extensively by the Schedule in the Act.
 It generally starts from the date when the summons or notice is served, or the date on which the decree or
judgment is passed, or the date on which the event that forms the basis of the suit takes place.
Bar of Limitation Under Section 3
Section 3 of the Act provides that any suit, appeal, or application must be made within the limitation
period specified in the Limitation Act.
 If any suit, appeal or application is made beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it is the duty of the Court
not to proceed with such suits irrespective of the fact whether the plea of limitation has been set up as a
defence or not.
 The provisions of Section 3 are mandatory, and the Court can suo motu take note of question of limitation.
 The question whether a suit is barred by limitation should be decided on the facts as they stood on the date
of presentation of the plaint. It is a vital section upon which the whole Limitation Act depends for its efficacy.
 The effect of Section 3 is not to deprive the Court of its jurisdiction. Therefore, decision of a Court allowing
a suit which had been instituted after the period prescribed is not vitiated for want of jurisdiction. A decree
passed in a time barred suit is not a nullity.
Limitation Bars Remedy but doesn't Extinguish Right
 The law of limitation only bars the remedy by way of the suit i.e., if the period of limitation expires, the
party entitled to file a suit for the enforcement of a right is debarred from doing so.
o However, the original right on which the suit was to base is not barred. Thus, limitation only bars the judicial
remedy, but it does not extinguish the right.
 For example, where the recovery of a debt has become time barred by the lapse of the prescribed period, the
right to the debt is not extinguished.
o If the debtor, without being aware of the bar of time, pays the debt, he cannot sue the creditor to refund the
money to him on the grounds that his claims for the recovery of the debt had become time barred.
 There is one exception to the aforesaid rule contained in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
o It provides that where a person’s right to institute the suit for the possession of any property has become barred
by limitation his right to the property itself shall be extinguished.
Extinguishment of Right
 General Rule that the law of limitation only bars the remedy but does not bar the right itself.
 Section 27 is an exception to this rule. It talks about adverse possession. Adverse possession means someone
who has possession over another’s land for a long time can claim a legal title over it.
o In other words, the title of the property will vest with the person who resides in or is in possession of the
land or property for a long period.
 If the rightful owner sleeps over his rights, then the rights of the owner will be extinguished, and the
possessor of the property will confer a good title over it.
 Section 27 is not limited to physical possession but also includes de jure possession. As per the wordings of
this Section, it applies and is limited only to suits for possession of the property.
Doctrine of Sufficient Cause
 Sufficient cause means there should be adequate reasons or reasonable ground for the court to believe the
applicant was prevented from proceeding with the application in a Court of Law.
 Section 5 allows the extension of prescribed period in certain cases on sufficient cause being shown for the
delay.
o This is known as doctrine of “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay which is embodied in this section.
o Condonation of delay means that extension of time given in certain cases provided there is sufficient cause
for such delay.
 Section 5 of the Act talks about the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. It provides that if the
appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause to not prefer the appeal or
application within that period, such appeal or application can be admitted after the prescribed time.
 In State of West Bengal v. Administrator (1972), the Supreme Court held that the extension of time is a
matter of concession and can not be claimed by the party as a matter of right.
o It is difficult and undesirable to precisely define the meaning of sufficient cause. It must be determined by the
facts and circumstances of each case. However, a sufficient cause should fulfill the following essentials:
 It must be a cause which was beyond the control of the party invoking it.
 He must not be guilty of negligence.
 His diligence and care must be shown.
 His intention must be bonafide.
Exception
 Section 5 is not applicable to applications made under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (states that the decree must be signed by the judge, and then the decree must be
entered in the register of decrees and further states that the decree should be dated and authenticated by
the judge's signature) and to suits.
 The Court has no power to admit a time barred suit even if there is a sufficient cause for the delay. It
applies only to appeals or applications as specified therein.
Plea of limitation: Duty of Court
 The Court is under an obligation to dismiss a suit if it is filed beyond the time prescribed by the
Limitation Act. The provisions of Section 3 are mandatory, and the Court will not proceed with the suit if
it is barred by time.
Case Laws
 Craft Centre v. Koncherry Coir Factories (1990):
o It was held by the Kerala High Court that the plaintiff's duty is to convince the Court that his suit is within
time.
o If it is out of time and the plaintiff relies on acknowledgments to save the limitations, he must plead or
prove them, if denied.
o The Court further held that, provision of Section 3 is absolute and mandatory and if a suit is barred by the
time, the court is under a duty to dismiss the suit even at the appellate stage though the issue of limitation
may not have been raised.
 ICICI Bank Ltd v. Trishla Apparels Pvt Ltd (2015):
o It was held by Madras High Court that there is no doubt that the court is duty-bound to dismiss the suit in
a case it is barred by time even though no such plea has been taken by the opposite party.
Limitation Period When the Court is Closed
Section 4 of the Limitation Act deals with the provision and mentions:
 When a court is closed on a certain day and the period of limitation expires on that day, then any suit,
appeal or application shall be taken up to the Court on the day on which it reopens.
o This means that a party is prevented not by his own fault but because of the Court being closed on that
day.
 For instance, if a Court reopens on 1st January and the time for filing the appeal expires on 30th December (the
day on which the Court remains closed) then the appeal can be preferred on the 1st of January when the Court
reopens.
 Legal Disability
 The ‘Law of Limitation’ provides an aggrieved party with the time limit for different suits within
which the party can approach the court for relief.
 The suit is dismissed by the competent court where the time limit provided by the limitation
act expires. A situation may exist where, due to his physical or mental condition, the person is not able
to file a suit or make an application.
 In such cases, the law may not be the same and additional rights and benefits may be accorded to
individuals with disabilities.
 The concept of legal disability is provided under Section 6 of the Limitation Act,1963 which further
extends to Sections 7, 8 and 9.
Section 6 of the Limitation Act,1963
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 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, 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 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.
The section deals with following types of disabilities:
 Minority Insanity Idiocy
Minority
 Minor is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years according to Indian Majority Act, 1875.
 The calculation of the age has to be done according to Section 3(2) of the Majority Act, 1875 - In
computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he
shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.
Insanity
 It means unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents someone from having
the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that
releases someone from criminal or civil responsibility.
 In the case of S.K.Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the concept of insanity has been dealt with
in detail by the Supreme Court and the court opined that only legal insanity is recognized by
law and not the medical insanity.
 Another case on the point of insanity is that of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2008) in which the Supreme Court categorized insanity into further four categories:
 When one is an idiot; When one is made non compos by illness When one is a lunatic or a mad
man and When one is drunk.
Idiocy
A person who acts in an extremely foolish way is said to be an idiot. Idiocy is not an acquired form of mental
instability, rather a person is an idiot since his/her birth.
Computation of Limitation Period in case of Legal Disability
Persons with insanity, minority and idiocy as disabilities are exempted under Section 6 to file a suit or an
application for the execution of the order in the time prescribed by the law. They are allowed to file a suit or
an application when their disability has ceased and counting the period starts from the day their disability
comes to an end.
Who is entitled to the benefit of Section 6
It is only a person “entitled to the suit” who can claim benefit of legal disability. Where the person dies with
such disability the ‘Legal Representative’ of such person may sue and all the rules provided by Section
6 would apply to such legal representative as well.
Accrual of cause of action
 The provision provides that the plaintiff must be suffering from the disability at the time when
the cause of action accrues.
 In the case of Udhavji Anandji Ladha and Ors. v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar (1949) Bombay High
Court held that Section 6 does not cover in any way any “intervening” kind of legal disability. When
a legal disability is in existence, only then can Section 6 be successfully applied.
Section 7 of the Limitation Act,1963
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.
 Section 7 had to be taken as an exception to the general principle set out in Section 6 and provides that
if there were several persons who were jointly entitled to file suits and if one of them were disabled, the
time would not run against either of them until the disability ceased to exist. But if one of the persons
entitled to institute a suit was competent to grant discharge without concurrence from others, then time
would begin to run against both of them.
Section 8 of the Limitation Act,1963:
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.
 This provision provides that if the limitation period is extended under Section 6 or 7 then in no case it
should be extended for more than 3 years.
 Also, the extension under Section 6 or 7 will not be applicable to suits for pre-emption.
Section 9 of the Limitation Act,1963:
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. Continuous running of time, as outlined in Section 9 of
the Limitation Act, signifies that once the period of limitation commences, it persists without interruption.
Regardless of subsequent disabilities or inabilities to initiate legal actions, the limitation period continues to
run unabated. This principle ensures that parties cannot indefinitely postpone legal proceedings based on
later-developed incapacities or difficulties. The law aims to provide certainty and finality in legal matters by
setting clear time limits for initiating legal actions. Continuous running of time promotes efficiency in the legal
system and encourages timely resolution of disputes.
 What is Condonation of Delay in Law?
Meaning of Condonation of Delay
The term ‘condonation’ signifies that the offence (of avoiding the law of period as suggested by the Act) is impliedly
rejected, and the case will continue to proceed as no offence has occurred.
What is the Condonation of Delay Under the Limitation Act 1963?
The Limitation Act of 1963 administers the limitation period for a lawsuit. The act summarises the factors that can be
considered for evaluating the applicable time limit. Condonation of delay is an exemption to the general rule, which indicates
that a court may agree to accept a late appeal or application. Here, find the list of some of the major points on how a
condonation of delay can be filed:
 Late submission of a form or application will cause a time bar on an appeal in a legal case.
 Once the court ascertains the reason for the delay, it will continue to hear the case.
 A court will grant condonation of delay if it notices that the applicant had a rational reason for the delay. In such
scenarios, the court usually agrees that there was an adequate delay in filing the appeal.
 Though the objective of the law is to safeguard a petitioner’s rights, it cannot offer a waiver to a defendant.
 The applicant is required to fulfil the time for the statute’s duration before they can file a lawsuit.
 The restraint period is when a petitioner can bring suit against a defendant.
 The law also facilitates an exception for the condonation of delay in the Limitation Act for appeals.
The Limitation Act of 1963 has a larger objective. It offers a time limit for the applicant to file an application, appeal, or suit
before the court. In case the legislation is not passed with respect to limitations, it leads to an indefinite litigation process.
Instances when Condonation is Applicable
The following are some of the instances where condonation is granted.
 Subsequent amendments in the law.
 The party’s illness involves the nature and severity of the illness and the facts surrounding the failure to act.
 The party’s imprisonment; here, just detainment is not enough. It varies on a case-to-case basis.
 The party belongs to a minority group with inadequate resources.
 Poverty and paupers.
 The party is a government servant: Ideally, a government servant does not get an incentive to fulfil the task. Thus,
a certain amount of flexibility is permitted in such cases.
 The party is illiterate.
 Delay owing to the pendency of the writ petition.
 Other accepted grounds: delay in fetching copies, error by the council, misled by rulings, error in court, etc.
Exceptions to Condonation of Delay
There are some exceptions to the possibility of the notion of condonation of delay; check the details below:
 Only criminal cases are included under the doctrine.
 Only applications and appeals are covered under the doctrine that excludes “suit”.
Barring the case of an application under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all the applications and appeals are
covered by the doctrine.
The General Principles of the Condonation of Delay
In the Collector Land Acquisition v/s Mst Katiji case in 1987, the Supreme Court gave a verdict in favor of the latter. Mst
Katiji recommended some principles that need to be adhered to while administering the doctrine on condonation of delay.
 Generally, the plaintiff is not entitled to an advantage by filing a late appeal.
 If the court denies to condone the delay, it can cause a meritorious matter to be dismissed. However, the case will
be heard based on merits when a delay is permitted. This means a decision is ruled out as per the evidence instead
of the technical and procedural ground.
 “Every day’s delay is needed to be justified” does not indicate that the doctrine should be applied irrationally. It
must be applied in a reasonable manner, not a literal way.
 The option between substantial justice and technical considerations is a case of preference. The other party cannot
claim that injustice is caused due to a bona fide delay.
 It is not possible to presume that the delay was caused deliberately. The litigant gains nothing but resorting to
delaying and, in fact, possesses serious risk.

Time Limit for Condonation of Delay Under Limitation Act, 1963

There’s a specific time limit set forth in Schedule 1 of the Act. Here’s what it mentions:
 A suit dealing with contracts, accounts, suits related to moveable property, and retrieval of a lawsuit under a
contract among others has a 3-year limit.
 Suits specific to possession of the immovable property are given a 12-year statute of limitations. On the other
hand, suits dealing with mortgaged property have a 30-year statute of limitations.
 With regard to tort suits, there’s a time limit of 1 year (3 years for compensation in some cases). In a scenario of
appeals under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code, the time limit is 30 to 90 days.
Type of Jurisdiction
The court holds the choice to forgive the delay, as well as allow the appeal to continue. Even if the right cause has been
presented, the party is not authorised to delay condonation, as the decision is up to the court and has discretionary
jurisdiction.
What is ‘Sufficient Cause’?
The subject of “sufficient cause” cannot be clearly defined and varies from case to case. The court can use discretion to
ascertain what comprises adequate cause depending on the circumstances of each case.
The reason for non-appearance, stay of execution, and adjournment needs to be just and sufficient. Else, they will only serve
to extend the litigation. While this principle is supposed to encourage the pursuit of justice, it cannot be used to reject justice.
The sufficient cause should be interpreted profusely to achieve considerable justice.