INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 

In general terms, the word ‘limitation’ refers to a restriction, curb or constraint. However, in law, the term ‘limitation’ is defined as a certain period limited by statute after which actions, suits, or prosecutions cannot be brought in the court. 

A Statute of Limitation, therefore, is a law that denotes the maximum time period within which legal proceedings can be initiated by an aggrieved person. If a suit is filed beyond such prescribed time period, then it is in the Court’s discretion to entertain the matter.  

In India, this statute is known as the Limitation Act of 1963 which was enforced on 1st January, 1964.  

1.  Objective of the Limitation Act, 1963 

The Limitation Act, 1963 (hereafter referred to as the Act), as stated above, specifies the statutory time frame within which an aggrieved person can approach a Court of Law to enforce a right. Various suits have different time frames which are specified in the Schedule of the Act.  The main objective of the Act is to prevent litigation from being carried out for an unforeseeably long period of time and to ensure quick disposal of cases that results in smooth litigation.  

2.  What is the period of limitation 

Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963 defines the period of limitation as ‘the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and “prescribed period” means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.’ 

2. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 

1.  Is the Limitation Act an exhaustive law? 

The Limitation Act is an exhaustive law with respect to all the matters that are expressly provided in it. One can also say that the Act is a complete code in itself.  

The Supreme Court, in its judgement in A.S.K Krishnappa Chettiar v. K.S.V.V. Somaiah1 held as follow- 

“The limitation act is a consolidating and amending statute relating to the limitation of suits, appeals and certain types of applications to the courts and therefore must be regarded as an exhaustive code governing law of limitation in India and the Indian courts are not permitted to travel beyond its provisions to add or supplement them. It is not a substantive law but a procedural law.” 

2.  What is the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963? 

Section 3(1) of the Act informs us of the bar of limitation which reads as follows – 

“Bar of limitation: 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.” 

Therefore, Section 3(1) of the Act implies that the Limitation Act is appliable only to suits, appeals and applications, i.e., in civil matters that are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

Criminal proceedings: It is the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that comes into the picture. The limitation period in criminal matters may range from 6 months to 3 years. This is because the evidence is prone to becoming less useful after a point of time and may even get lost as old claims. These circumstances have a negative impact on such evidence. For example, a blood-stained knife, victim’s clothes, etc.  

Thus, there is a limitation period in criminal cases until and unless the contrary is mentioned in the law itself. However, courts have discretionary powers to admit a case even after the expiry of such period of limitations provided that sufficient cause for the same has been proven to the satisfaction of the court. It is pertinent to note that criminal offences that entail a punishment of a time exceeding 3 years do not have a limitation period.  

Arbitral proceedings: The governing law in arbitral matters is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 43(1) of the said Act makes the Limitation Act applicable to arbitral proceedings and reads as follows: 

“43. Limitations.—(1) The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court.” 

Suits instituted by the Government: Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 allows the Government, be it the Central or the State Government including that of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, to institute suits (except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) within a period of 30 years, irrespective of the nature of the cause of action. This provision applies to all suits instituted by the Government-Central or State, with an exception of minor importance not material for the present purpose. The period allowed to Government is much longer than that allowed in respect of suits by private parties. 

Writ proceedings: The Limitation Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive law and therefore, will govern those aspects of law which are expressly provided under the Act. Since there is no time restriction prescribed for filing writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Indian Constitution, it does not come under the purview of the Limitation Act. However, the constitutional courts have, time and again, emphasised on the need for writ petitions to be filed within a ‘reasonable period of time’.  

The Supreme Court, in Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation2,  observed, “The Superior Courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition but emphasize is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches.” 

Tribunals: There are divided opinions when it comes to the applicability of the Limitation Act on orders passed by the various Tribunals in India that function as quasi-judicial bodies.  

In the case of Sakuru v. Tanaji3, the Supreme Court observed that tribunals are excluded from the term ‘Courts’ in its literal sense in the context of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, in more recent times, we have seen more liberal interpretation of the term “Courts”. One such incident that can be cited is Hon’ble Justice Nariman’s findings in M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise4 in which he stated that Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be liberally interpreted to bring tribunals under the ambit of the term ‘Courts’ as it is the purpose of the legislation to extend the principles of equity and justice.  

Therefore, Section 3 of the Limitation Act lays down the general rule that if any suit, appeal or application is presented before the court after the prescribed period is over, then the Court has the power to dismiss such matters as time-barred. However, the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. Section 3 only bars the remedy but does not destroy the right which the remedy relates to. This was held by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors v. Surendra Prasad Sinha5 

Furthermore, the Act does not refrain the defendant from raising a legitimate defence despite the suit against which he is contesting is declared time-barred. This was observed by the Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi6. 

3.  What does condonation of delay mean? 

Section 5 of the Act refers to condonation of delay. It enables a Court to admit an appeal or an application after the prescribed period of time is over in the event of sufficient cause being shown for the delay. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act but it has been held that it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of this section. The Court has discretionary powers to extend the prescribed period under this provision of the Act.  

It is important to note that applications made under the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with execution of decrees, do not come under the purview of Section 5 of the Act.  

1. What does sufficient cause as stated in Section 5 of the Act imply? 

Sufficient cause may be defined as adequate or reasonable grounds that may be argued before the Court in order to prove that the applicant was prevented from litigating within the stipulated time frame.  

The courts have attempted to interpret the term ‘sufficient cause’ in a liberally, however, it is the obligation of the applicant to show sufficient cause because of which he was prevented from continuing to prosecute the proceedings in the suit. This was observed in Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors7.  

In Ornate Traders Private Limited v. Mumbai8, the Court ruled that where sufficient cause is shown and the application for condonation of delay has filed bonafidely, the court would usually condone the delay.  However, if the delay has not been explained at all and there is an inordinate delay in addition to negligence and carelessness, the discretion of the court would normally be against the applicant. 

4.  Legal disability under the Limitation Act, 1963 

Legal disability under the Act refers to legal incapacity to perform an action because of diminished physical and mental abilities. Section 6 of the Act recognizes three forms of legal disabilities, i.e., minority, insanity and idiocy.  It is important to note that, according to this section, the term “minor” encompasses a child in the womb of the mother. 

The following situations are provided for under this section – 

• If a person entitled to pursue a suit or file an application for the execution of a decree is a minor, insane or mentally disabled, then such a person can pursue litigation once his/her disability ends, as specified in the Schedule of the Act. If a person is affected by multiple disabilities, they can file a suit or make the application when both disabilities cease. 

•  If a person’s legal disability continues to exist until the death of such person, then his/her legal representatives can file the suit or the application after the demise of that person. If the legal representatives are affected by a disability other than death, the aforementioned provisions will continue to apply. 

• If a person with a disability passes away after the disability has ended but before the deadline set by this section, his/her legal representative may file a lawsuit or application within the same timeframe as if the person were still alive. 

It is advised that Section 6 is read with Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 refer to the continuous running of time and states, “Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it.” Therefore, once the limitation period has begun, it cannot be brought to a halt or stopped altogether unless express statutory provisions state otherwise. 

3. CALCULATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION 

Sections 12 to 24 of the Act provide for the calculation of the period of limitation. Some of the important provisions are stated below: 

• Section 12: This section refers to the various exclusions of time in legal proceedings for computing the period of limitation. For example, Section 12(1) requires the date from which the period of limitation ought to start to be excluded from the calculation for any suit, appeal or application. 

• Section 13: This section mandates that if an application for leave to sue or leave to appeal is filed by a pauper is rejected, then the time during which the pauper has been prosecuting in good faith for such leave should be excluded from the computation of period of limitation.  

• Section 14: This section talks about the exclusion of time of proceedings initiated bonafidely in a court that does not have jurisdiction. In consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, this section will apply provided that the litigant exercised due diligence and acted in a bona fide manner. 

• Section 15: This section refers to the exclusion of time in certain other cases. For example, Section 15(5) states that the time during which the defendant was not present in India shall be excluded from the computation of period of limitation for a suit. 

• Section 16: This section deals with the effect of death on or before the accrual of right to due for which the cause of action must not arise before the concerned person dies. 

• Section 17: This section deals with the effect of fraud or mistake wherein the limitation shall be calculated from the time when the fraud was discovered by the person against whom the fraud was committed.  

• Section 22: This section provides for the computation of a fresh period of limitation in cases of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort for every moment of the time during which such breach continues to persist. 

4. CONCLUSION 

Through the enactment of the Limitation Act, 1963, there is now a law in place to keep a check on the inordinate delays in litigation by dismissing the suits which are time-barred. It re-emphasises on the point that the law supports those who vigilant about their rights and remedies. Furthermore, it also seeks to reassure the common man who, given the present state of affairs, is riddled with worries about never-ending litigation and the financial burden it entails.