CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: PROJECT REPORT

ARMY INSTITUE OF LAW

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963

Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for BA. LLB degree

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Prof (Adv.) Karan Bhardwaj Deepak Prajapati
Army Institute of Law Roll No. 1622
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my Code of Civil Procedure Professor,

Adv. Karan Bhardwaj, for allotting me this topic and guiding me through it. Your wisdom
and knowledge helped me immensely in the compilation of my project.

I would also like to thank my fellow batch mates and friends. If it hadn’t been for their
criticism, I would not have been able to improve the various flaws in my project.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No TITLE PAGE
NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 4
.

2 WHAT DOES LIMITATION PERIOD MEAN? 4

.

3 OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION 4

.

4 CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW OF 6

. LIMITATION

5 LAW OF LIMITATION BARS THE REMEDY AND DOES NOT 6

.
EXTINGUISH THE RIGHT

6 SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT 7

.

7 BROAD CONSIDERATION ON WHICH DOCTRINE OF 12

.
LIMITATION IS BASED

8 REDRESS OF THE LEGAL INJURY FROM LEGAL ACTION 13

.
WHEN SUFFERED

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 16
.
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963

“Interest republican ut sit finislitium”

INTRODUCTION

Law is the back-bone for the standing of the peaceful and live in the society. It lives and
changes with the change in the society. The mortality is the fate of every life. The nature and
its laws follow it without break and deviations. So would be the fate with the litigations,
because there is no good to the society in keeping them to be live for sine-die period.

The law of limitation is founded on the Latin maxim “Interest republicae ut sit finislitium”,
which means that it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rajendar Singh v. Santa Singh1, held that the object of the law of
limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation may have been acquired in equity and
justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence
or laches.

WHAT DOES LIMITATION PERIOD MEAN?

The law prescribes different periods within which a person who has a grievance should go to
the court. For example, if somebody has borrowed your money and not returned it, you
should approach the court within three years from the date you had lent the money. If you
don’t go to the court within that time, the courts will not be of help to recover your money.
This is called the Limitation Period. After the Limitation Period, you cannot enforce your
rights in a court.

The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes different limitation periods for different kinds of claims.
Some other Acts, such as the Consumer Protection Act also prescribe Limitation Period.

OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION

England: According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, the Main Objects of the Law of
Limitations are as follows:

Whereas it has been observed and expressed by the Court that there are almost three different
types of supporting reasons for the existence of statutes of limitation.
1
AIR 1973 SC 2537.
 1. That long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them.

2. That a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the State claim.

3. That person with good causes of actions should pursue them with.

Indian Perspective
The object of the Law of Limitation is well known that interest of the State requires that
there should be an end of litigation. The utility of a Statute of Limitation has never been a
matter of serious doubt or dispute. It has been said that the Statute of Limitation is a Statute
of repose, peace, and justice.

It is one of the repose, because it extinguishes stale demands and quiets title, in the words of
John Voet, “controversies are restricted to a fixed period of time lest they become immortal
while men are mortal”. It secures peace as it ensures security of rights and it secures justice,
as by lapse of time evidence in support of rights may have been destroyed.

There can be thus being no doubt that it (The Law of Limitation) rests on the sound policy.
The operation of the law of prescription has been explained by Lord Plunket in a striking
metaphor. He stated that time holds in on hand a scythe and in the other, an hour-glass. The
scythe moves down the evidence of our rights while the hour-glass measures the period
which renders that evidence superfluous.

Commenting on this a learned author observes that the metaphor could have been completed
by adding, so far as India is concerned, that the frame work of the hour-glass will certainly
decay, the glass be broken and the sand escape.2

Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of
providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of
limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so
suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit.

During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek
legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a life-span must be fixed for each remedy.
Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and
consequential anarchy.
2
Report of the Law Commission of India on the Limitation Act, p.1
The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim “interest
republicae ut sit finis litium” (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).

The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time.3

CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION

Law of limitation is not meant to be an aid to unconscionable conduct, although, if a claim is

clearly barred, the Court must unhesitatingly dismiss the suit. It is a law of repose, peace and
justice which bars the remedy after the lapse of a particular period by way of public policy
and expediency without extinguishing the right except in certain cases.

Therefore, the Court must lean against limitation and in favour of the subsistence of the
right to sue where two views are clearly possible. When there is the benefit of a reasonable
doubt in the matter of construction of a statement relied upon to serve as an
acknowledgment to save limitation, the benefit of that doubt should go to the plaintiff.

That is what V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. said in Eapen Panicker v. Krishna Panicker 4, following
earlier Supreme Court decisions; vide Craft Centre and Ors. v. The Koncherry Coir Factories,
Cherthala5.

LAW OF LIMITATION BARS THE REMEDY AND DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE RIGHT

As has been laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Popat and Kotecha Property’s case6, the
Law of Limitation bars only the remedy and does not extinguish the rights of the parties.

Illustration:

A enters into an agreement with B on 1 st January, 2003, to sell his property for a certain sum
of money and receives some advance. He agrees to execute a sale deed within two months,
but later on refuses to do so. B can file a suit for specific performance of contract within three
years from 1st March, 2003, as per article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Act’).

3
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510.
4
1970 KLT 42.
5
AIR 1991 Ker. 83.
6
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510.
However B does not file the suit till 1st March 2006 and thereafter the suit is barred by
limitation. But on account of good sense if A performs the contract, even 1 st March 2006,
nobody is going to stop him, nor he can later file a suit to get the sale deed cancelled on the
ground that he was not obliged to perform the contract after the limitation.

Exception:

However there is an exception to the aforesaid rule. Section 27 of the Act says that 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. This provision has been kept
because the adverse possession creates an absolute ownership in favour of the person who is
in adverse possession.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT

Brief Outline of the Act:

The Limitation Act contains 32 Sections and 137 Articles. The articles have been divided into
10 parts. The first part is relating to accounts, the second part is relating to contracts, the third
part is relating to declaration, the fourth part is relating to decrees and instrument, the fifth
part is relating to immovable property, the sixth part is relating to movable property, the
seventh part is relating to torts, the eighth part is relating to trusts and trust property, the ninth
part is relating to miscellaneous matters and the last part is relating to suits for which there is
no prescribed period.

There is no uniform of limitation for the suits under which the classifications has been
attempted.

1. Suits, appeals and applications filed after the laws of limitation are liable to be
dismissed:

 Every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed
period of limitation shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as
defense, (Section 3).
 However this provision is subject to the provisions of section 4 to 24 of the Act.
2. Exclusion of time in certain cases:

 When the court is closed on the last day of the limitation, the limitation shall be
extended up to a period when the court re-opens. For example, when the last day of
limitation falls on Sunday, or in summer vacation, when the court is closed, the plaint,
petition or appeal can be presented on Monday, or on the first day of the court re-
opening after the summer vacation. (Section 4)
 Except the original suits, and applications under Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Execution Petitions for Decrees), all appeals and applications can be
accepted by the Court, even after the expiration of the limitation period, provided
adequate and sufficient grounds for not filing the application or appeal in time are
given, (Section 5).
Thus the provisions of section 5 of the Act do not apply to any suit or other petition
filed for the first time in Court, like Election Petitions, Civil Suits and Cases under the
Consumer Protection Act.
 If the person is a minor or under a legal disability, when the right to sue starts, than
the time of limitation shall start running only when the person becomes major or the
disability ceases to exist. However for certain suits, the limitation cannot extend for
more than three years, after the cessation of disability or attaining majority.
For example, A lends money to B with a condition that the money would be repaid
after two months. The time limitation will start running only after two months of the
date of lending. After one and half month A becomes insane, which insanity continues
for twelve years. The time shall start running only after twelve years. In a suit for
redemption or foreclosure of mortgage if the limitation of 30 years expired during the
period of insanity of the plaintiff, the maximum limitation which can be allowed to
him after cessation of the disability would be three years, (Sections 6, 7 & 8).
 The aforesaid provisions shall apply to Legal Representatives as well.
 But once the time has started running, no subsequent disability or inability can stop it.
For example, A purchases goods on credit from B, with no time limit fixed for
repayment. In this case the time of limitation starts running as soon as the goods are
purchased. In case B becomes insane, still the time will not stop running and if the
suit is not filed within three years of purchasing the goods, the same will be time
barred, (Section 9).
3. Computation Method:

 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. For example, a loan is taken
on 1st January 2003. While computing the period of limitation the day of 1st January
2003 shall be excluded and will be counted from 2nd January 2003. Therefore a suit
filed on 1st January 2006 shall be within limitation.
 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 judgement
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. Similarly 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.
 For example a judgement is pronounced on 1st January, 2007. While calculating the
time for appeal, this day will be excluded and an appeal can be filed within thirty
days,
i.e. upto 31st January, 2007 (If the limitation for such appeal is thirty days). Now 2 nd
February, 2007 the aggrieved person files an application for a certified copy, which is
delivered to him on 10th February, 2007. Thus he will get 9 more days and can file
appeal up to 9th March 2007. This rule applies to revision, review and awards as well.
However after making an application for taking certified copy, the person does not
take the copy, despite the fact that the copy is ready and the court has served him a
notice to take the same, such time cannot be calculated for extension of time. (Section
12)
 In computing the period of limitation for any suit or application, the time during
which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings,
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.
 For example on account of mistake, a suit or application has been filed in a court,
which though does not have jurisdiction, has bonafide entertained it? Thereafter when
the mistake is discovered, the plaint or application is returned to the plaintiff or
applicant as the case may be, to be filed in the appropriate court. If a complaint is filed
in the Consumer Forum for a dispute regarding commercial transaction, and when the
Forum
 rules that the matter should be tried by a Civil Court, the time spent in the consumer
forum shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. (Section 14)
 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.
 In computing the period of limitation for any suit of which notice has been give 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.
For example, for filing a suit against Government two months prior notice is a must as
contained in section 80 of the CPC. While calculating the time of limitation this
period of two months shall be excluded, provided the notice is issued before the
expiry of the original time of limitation.
 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 mad for
obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the order of the
Government or other authority shall both be counted. (Section 15)

4. Effect of acknowledgement in writing:

Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of
any property or right, an acknowledgement 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 drives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall
be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. Where the writing
containing the acknowledgement 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.

For example a loan taken on 1st January, 2004, becomes time barred on 1st January2007.
However if the debtor, executes an acknowledgement in writing and signs on it before 1 st
January, 2007, say on 24th of December, 2006, the period of limitation shall be renewed up to
24th December, 2009. But if the acknowledgement is made after 1st January 2007, it shall have
no effect of enhancing the limitation. (Section 18)

5. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy:

Where payment on account of 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.

For example, in the illustration given in point no.4, instead of acknowledgment, payment is
made on 24th December, 2006, still the limitation will be increased up to 24 th December, 2009.
However, to attract this provision the payment should be acknowledged in the hand writing
or signature of the person making it. In other words, payment without written
acknowledgment shall not be sufficient to increase the limitation period. (Section19)

6. Special Law prevails over the General Law

If some special statute provides a special limitation it shall prevail over the law of limitation.

Other Important Features:

 The limitation period is reduced from a period of 60 years to 30 years in the case of
suit by the mortgagor for the redemption or recovery of possession of the immovable
property mortgaged, or in case of a mortgages for the foreclosure or suits by or on the
behalf of Central Government or any State Government including the State of Jammu
and Kashmir.

 Whereas a longer period of 12 years has been prescribed for different kinds of suits
relating to immovable property, trusts and endowments, a period of 3 years has been
prescribed for the suits relating to accounts, contracts and declarations, suits relating to
decrees and instruments and as well as suits relating to movable property.

 A period varying from 1 to 3 years has been prescribed for suits relating to torts and
miscellaneous matters and for suits for which no period of limitation has been
provided elsewhere in the Schedule to the Act.

 It is to be taken as the minimum period of seven days of the Act for the appeal against
the death sentence passed by the High Court or the Court of Session in the exercise of
 the original jurisdiction which has been raised to 30 days from the date of sentence
given.

 One of the main salient feature of the Limitation Act, 1963 is that it has to avoid the
illustration on the suggestion given by the Third Report of the Law Commission on the
Limitation Act of 1908 as the illustration which are given are most of the time
unnecessary and are often misleading.

 The Limitation Act, 1963 has a very wide range considerably to include almost all the
Court proceedings. The definition of ‘application’ has been extended to include any
petition, original or otherwise. The change in the language of Section 2 and Section 5
of the Limitation act, 1963 includes all the petition and also application under special
laws.

 The new Act has been enlarged with the definition of ‘application’, ‘plaintiff’ and
‘defendant’ as to not only include a person from whom the application. Plaintiff or
defendant as the case may be derives his title but also a person whose estate is
represented by an executor, administrator or other representatives.

 According to Sections 86 and Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, it requires the
consent of the Central Government before suing foreign rulers, ambassadors and
envoys. The Limitation Act, 1963 provides that when the time obtained for obtaining
such consent shall be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing such
suits.

 The Limitation Act, 1963 with its new law signifies that it does not make any racial or
class distinction since both Hindu and Muslim Law are now available under the law of
limitation as per the existing statute book.

In the matter of Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik 7, the Supreme Court has observed that
the law of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 does make any racial or class distinction
while making or indulging any law to any particular person.

BROAD CONSIDERATION ON WHICH DOCTRINE OF LIMITATION IS BASED

 That, the right which are not exercised for a long time are said to be as non-existence.
 That, the rights which are related to property and rights which are in general should
not be in a state of constant uncertainty, doubt and suspense.
7
AIR 2001 SC 1968.
The main object of limit in any of the legal actions which is to give effect to the maxim
‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’ which means that if the interest of the State is required
that there should be a limit to a litigation and also to prevent any kind of disturbance or
deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice or by way long enjoyment
or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence or laches.

The intention in accepting the concept of limitation is that “controversies are restricted to a
fixed period of time, lest they should become immortal while men are moral.”

There is a limitation to litigation which interposes the statutory bar. This statutory restriction
after a certain period of time gives a status to enforce an existing right. Simply, it neither
create any right in favour of any person nor does it define or create any cause of action
against the particular person but it prescribes about the remedy. These remedy can be
exercised only up to a certain period of time and not subsequently. The main object of the
statute of the Limitation Act, 1963 is more over a preventive kind and not to interpose a
statutory bar after a certain period of time and it gives a quietus to all the suit matters to
enforce an existing right.

The major purpose of the statutory of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not to destroy or infringe
the rights of an aggrieved person but to serve public in a better way and to save time. This
statute is basically founded on the public policy for fixing a life span for the legal action
which are taken place and to seek remedy in time with the purpose of general welfare. The
object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage which is caused by reason of legal
injury.

REDRESS OF THE LEGAL INJURY FROM LEGAL ACTION WHEN SUFFERED

The provisions of Limitation Act which are provided in the statute are the statute of repose, to
suppress frauds and to supply deficiency of proofs which are arising from the ambiguity,
obscurity or the antiquity. The presumptions proceed upon the claims which are extinguished
or are ought to be extinguished whenever they are not litigated with the prescribed period of
time.

The right has been measured as an equivalent with regards to making of the quick diligence
to the person. It has discouraged the litigation by buying some common receptacle which has
accumulated from the past times which are now unexplainable and have become inexplicable
due to lapse of time. The Limitation Act is a law of repose, peace and justice which has
barred the remedy after the failure of particular period of time. This is all because for the
public policy and expediency without extinguishing any right in certain cases.
It has been the topic of discussion in the Supreme Court and different High Court about the
object of the Law of Limitation. In the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Rikhab Chand 8, it has
been observed by the Rajasthan High Court that the rules of limitation are mainly intended to
induce the claimant in claiming the relief and also in avoiding the unexplainable delay and
latches in a suit.

Whereas, in the matter of M.P. Raghavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer9, it has been
observed by the Kerala High Court that the Law of Limitation is based upon public policy
mainly aiming at justice, repose and peace.

In the matter of Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh10, it was held by the Supreme Court of India
that “the object of the Law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may
have been acquired in equity and justice by a long enjoyment or what may have been lost by
a party’s own inaction, negligence or latches.”

In the matter of B.B. & D. Mfg. Co. v. ESI Corporation 11, it was observed by the Supreme
Court that-

“The object of the Statutes of Limitations to compel a person to exercise his rights of
action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or
fraudulent claims. While this is so, there are two aspects of the Statutes of Limitation
— the one concerns with the extinguishment of the right if a claim or action is not
commenced within a particular time and the other merely bars the claim without
affecting the right which either remains merely as a moral obligation or can be
availed of to furnish the consideration for a fresh enforceable
obligation.

Where a statute prescribing the limitation extinguishes the right if affects substantive
right while that which purely pertains to the commencement of action without
touching the right is said to be procedural.”

In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy12, it was held by the Supreme Court that the
Limitation Act is based upon public policy which is used for fixing a life span of a legal
remedy
8
AIR 1966 Raj. 213.
9
1971 Ker. L.J. 583 (DB).
10
AIR 1973 SC 2537.
11
AIR 1972 SC 1935.
12
(1998) 7 SCC 123.
for the purpose of general welfare. It has been pointed out that the Law of Limitation are not
only meant to destroy the rights of the parties but are meant to look to the parties who do not
resort the tactics but in general to seek remedy. It fixes the life span for legal injury suffered
by the aggrieved person which has been enshrined in the maxim ‘interest reipublicae ut sit
finis Latium’ which means the Law of Limitation is for general welfare and that the period is
to be put into litigation and not meant to destroy the rights of the person or parties who are
seeking remedy. The idea with regards to this is that every legal remedy must be alive for a
legislatively fixed period of time.

The Law of Limitation is an adjective Law. It is lex fori. Thus, it can be said that the rules of
the Law of Limitation are generally prima facie with the rules of procedure and which has not
created any rights in favour of any particular person nor does they define or create any cause
of action. It has been simply prescribed that the remedy can be exercised only for a limited
fixed period of time and subsequently.

The two effective implementation which helps in for a quick disposal of a cases or matters
and which are also effective for litigation are Limitation and compensation of delay, which
plays a vital role before the court. The Law of Limitation helps to keep a check while pulling
of cases where it prescribes the period of time within which a suit is to be filled and also it is
the time which are available within which an aggrieved person can get the remedy
conveniently and in an easy manner.

Whereas the Law of Compensation of delay helps to keep the principle of natural justice alive
and it also helps to state the facts that when different people might have different problem
then the same kind of sentence or a same singular rule may not apply to all of them in a same
manner. Thus, it is very much essential to hear the matter first from them and then decide
accordingly whether they are fit in the criteria of the judgment or whether they should be
given another chance. So, it can be said that Law of Limitation is very much important for the
country like India and it also plays a major role in a court of law.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Cases:
1. B.B. & D. Mfg. Co. v. ESI Corporation, AIR 1972 SC 1935.
2. Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123.
3. Craft Centre and Ors. v. The Koncherry Coir Factories, Cherthala, AIR 1991 Ker. 83.
4. Eapen Panicker v. Krishna Panicker, 1970 KLT 42.
5. M.P. Raghavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer, 1971 Ker. L.J. 583 (DB).
6. Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC
510.
7. Rajendar Singh v. Santa Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2537.
8. State of Rajasthan v. Rikhab Chand, AIR 1966 Raj. 213.
9. Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik, AIR 2001 SC 1968.

Report:

1. Report of the Law Commission of India on the Limitation Act.