Limitation Act

Part 2
QUESTIONS
• “Limitation extinguishes remedy not right”. Explain
(2)
• “Limitation bars the remedy, but does not
extinguish the right”. Explain with exceptions if any.
• Adverse possession (SN)

• Explain the circumstances in which delay will be

condoned under the Limitation Act. (2)
• Discuss the provisions of Limitation Act governing
the condonation of delay (4)
Limitation extinguishes remedy
not right
INTRODUCTION
• Law of Limitation merely bars the remedy, but not
the right. (Hari Raj Singh vs. Sanchalak
Panchayat, AIR 1968, All. 246 at P. 250).

• In Bombay Dyeing and Mfg Co. Ltd. v. State

of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 328 = 1958 SCR
1122 (SC Constitution Bench), it was held that
the law of limitation only bars the remedy of
approaching the court of law. However, it does not
extinguish the right as such.
• The right continues to exist notwithstanding that
the remedy is barred by limitation. A debtor may
pay the time barred debt to the creditor. He cannot
claim it back on the plea that it was time barred.

• Limitation bars the remedy in a court of law,

only when the period of limitation has
expired, but it does not extinguish the right which
cannot be enforced by a judicial process.

• Thus if a claim is satisfied outside the court of

law, after the expiry of the period of limitation, that
is not illegal.
Babu Ram vs State of UP
• The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights
of the party.
• They are meant to see that the plaintiff does not take a
dilatory (delaying) tactics to seek remedy within the period
stipulated by the Legislature.
• The right continues to exist even though the remedy is barred by
limitation. It is only the remedy by way of a suit which is
barred but the right itself continues to exist and if there is
some other remedy or lawful means by which the right can be
enforced, the limitation act cannot come in that way.
• The concept ‘time barred’ cannot be extended to
proceedings outside the law courts.
• A debtor who owes several debts to a creditor
may pay a sum of money to the creditor. If there
is no specific mention, then the creditor can
adjust the payment towards any of the debts,
including the one whose recovery is barred by
limitation.
• “The rule of law is firmly established that debt does not
cease to be a debt because its recovery is barred by the
Statue of Limitation”. (First National Bank Ltd. Vs.
Seth Sant Lal, AIR 1959, Punj 328 at P. 330).

• In considering whether a particular remedy is

barred, one looks not at the relief given but at the
cause of action, that is, at the necessary allegations
which have to made and found before the relief sought
can be given. (Asaram vs. Budeshwar, AIR 1938,
Nag. 335 at P. 339 F.8).
EXCEPTION – Sec 27
• But there are special cases in which, on the remedy
becoming barred by limitation, the right itself is
extinguished like the one contemplated in Sec. 27 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 (Jawaharlal Motumal
Mamtani vs. Bhag chand Motumal Mamtani,
AIR 1981, Delhi 33)

• The Limitation Act lays down a rule of substantive law

in Sec. 27. It declares that after the lapse of the period
provided by this enactment, the right itself is gone and
the title ceases to exist, and not merely the remedy.
ADVERSE POSSESSION
• In a suit for possession of any property, on the determination of
the period of limitation not only the remedy but the right also is
extinguished under section 27, because it cannot be recovered
after the expiry of the period of limitation provided for
instituting a suit for its recovery.

• If an owner, whose property is encroached upon, suffers

his right to be barred by the law of limitation the practical effect
is the extinction of his title in favour of the party in possession.

• It is of the utmost consequence in India that the security

which long possession affords should not be weakened.
• As between private owners contesting inter se the title to
lands, the law has established a limitation of twelve
years: after that time it declares not simply that the
remedy is barred, but that the title is extinct in
favour of the possessor.

• When a person’s suit for possession of any property is barred

by limitation under the Act, his right to such property stands
extinguished: Section 27, under this section, not only the
ownership of one person is extinguished, but an absolute
ownership is also acquired by the other person in adverse
possession (Radhabai vs. Anantrao, 9, Bom. 198).
CONDONATION OF DELAY
SEC 5
Introduction
• Meaning of Condonation
• The term ‘Condonation’ means that the offence of ignoring the law of
period as prescribed by the Act, is impliedly disregarded and the
matter shall process as if no offence has been committed.

• The Doctrine of Condonation of Delay

• Condonation of Delay finds its mention in Section 5 of the Act which
elaborates upon extension of prescribed period in certain cases.

• According to it, any appeal or application may be admitted

after the prescribed period if the applicant/appellant is able
to satisfy the Court that they had “sufficient cause” for not
instituting the appeal/application in the prescribed period.
• The Act postulates time-limits within which a suit,
appeal or application can be instituted.
• The expiry of such time period leads to
extinguishing the remedy of the aggrieved party.
• The expiry of the limitation is the right of the decree
holder to treat the decree as binding.

• This doctrine is an exception to the limitation

period. According to this, if the aggrieved party can
furnish “sufficient cause” for causing a delay in
institution of suit leading to the expiry of the
limitation period, the Court can, with
discretionary jurisdiction disregard the delay or
“condone the delay” and proceed with the case.
Period of limitation
• Section 2(j) defines “period of limitation” as the time
prescribed by the Schedule to institute any suit, appeal or
application, and “prescribed period” as the period of
limitation determined as per the provisions of the Act.

• The CPC confers a right to appeal but does not

prescribe a period of limitation for filing an appeal.
The Limitation Act, 1963 however provides the period for
filing of appeals.
• It states that appeals against a decree holder can be filed in
High Court within 90 days and in any other court in 30
days from the date of the decree or order appealed
against.
• Procedure –Sec 3A
• Where an appeal is presented after the expiry of the
period of limitation specified thereof, be accompanied
by an application that the applicant has sufficient cause
for not preferring the appeal within the time.

• Applicability
• The doctrine of condonation is applicable to criminal
proceedings.
• The doctrine covers appeals and applications.
Exceptions to Condonation of Delay –
Section 5

• 1.The doctrine does not include “suit” and only covers

appeals and applications.
• The reason is that the period prescribed for most of the
suit extends from 3 to 12 years while the period prescribed
for appeals and applications runs in months. Some
concession has been therefore allowed in respect of these
appeals and applications.

• 2. The doctrine does not apply under any of the provisions

of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Sufficient cause
• The term “sufficient cause” isn’t defined explicitly and varies on a
case-to-case basis. It must mean a cause which is beyond the
control of the party invoking the aid of the section.

• The Court has a wide discretion in determining what constitutes

as sufficient cause, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. This principle has been advocated in
furtherance of pursuance of justice but it shouldn’t deny
someone else of justice either. A cause for delay which, by due
care and attention, the party could have avoided cannot be
sufficient cause. The extension of time under this section this is
at the discretion of the court. It is judicial not arbitrary decided
on its facts and circumstances.
• In the case of G. Ramagowda v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, it was held that “sufficient
cause” is to be interpreted liberally so as to pursue
substantial justice.

• In cases regarding non-appearance, adjournment

or stay of execution of a decree, the cause must
be just and adequate i.e. “sufficient” otherwise
these provisions will just be a way of incessantly
prolonging litigation.
Test - whether it is a bonafide cause?
• State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Ghulam Rasool Rathore
Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy
the rights of the parties they are meant to see that parties do not
resort to deliberate tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
• While considering a case condonation of  delay, the court must always
remember that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on
the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not sufficient to
turn down his plea and shut the door against him. If the
explanation does not map smack of malafides or it is not forth as part of a
dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.
• But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was
occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court
should lean against acceptance of the explanation. The discretion
exercised in the matter of condonation of delay should be proper and
judicious.
Instances where condonation can be
granted
• The following are the instances where
condonation can be granted:
• Subsequent changes in the law.
• Illness of the party: It includes the nature and
severity of disease and facts encompassing the
failure to act.
• Imprisonment of the party: However, mere
detainment is not sufficient cause. Varies on a
case-to-case basis.
Contd..
• Party belongs to a minority group with insufficient
funds.
• Pauper. But Poverty / mere plea of illness
/negligence is not sufficient cause.
• Party is a government servant: A government
servant may not have an incentive in fulfilling the
task. Therefore, a certain latitude is permissible in
such a case.
• Delay due to the pendency of the writ petition.
• Party is illiterate.
Contd..
• Mistake of Court, Mistake of Counsel, Delay in
getting copies, mislead by rulings, etc.
• Mistake of counsel - Mohan Lal vs Tej Singh
Thakur It is no doubt a good ground for extension
of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but
the mistake must be such which is bonafide one
and not one which proceeds from misconduct or
negligence or want of reasonable skill.

• Mistake or Ignorance of law is not sufficient cause.

Contd..
• Minor - where the next friend or Guardian for
his own advantage or by negligence allowed time
for appeal to run out, the court may and enlarge
time for appeal in the infant's favour.

• Wrong proceedings- example if the writ is filed

instead of appeal or proceedings of instituted in
the wrong Court, such proceedings may be
condoned by the court, at its discretion.
General Principles of the Condonation of
delay
• The Supreme Court, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v.
Mst. Katiji prescribed certain principles which need to be followed
while administering the doctrine of condonation of delay:

• Ordinarily, the litigant doesn’t stand to benefit by instituting an

appeal late.

• If the Court is refusing to condone the delay, it can result in a

meritorious matter being discarded and the roots of justice being
defeated. However, when a delay is condoned, the highest that can
happen is that the case will be decided on merits, i.e. a decision based
on evidence rather than on the technical and procedural ground.
Contd..
• “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean
the doctrine is to be applied in an irrational manner. It must
be applied in a sensible manner and not a literal one.

• Between substantial justice and technical

considerations, the former deserves to be preferred for the
other side cannot claim that injustice is done because of a
bona fide delay.

• There is no presumption that delay is caused

deliberately. The litigant has nothing to gain by resorting to
delay and runs a serious risk.
Conclusion
• Condonation of delay is thus the safeguard to the law of
limitation and bars certain cases in which the delay in filing
the suit is justifiable, i.e. can be backed by having “sufficient
cause”.

• There are cases where the Court didn’t allow condoning the
delay of one day, and there are cases where the Court excuses
delay of several years. It varies from case-to-case and the
Court has discretionary jurisdiction to determine whether a
case is suitable for condonation or not.

**************