ASSIGNMENT ON LIMITATIONS ACT

INTRODUCTION:

The Limitation laws say that all the disputes/claims/remedies should be entertained in courts
only for a fixed period of time, because if such disputes are given unlimited time, then it will
become near to impossible to solve the upcoming disputes as every time the court will have to
deal with previous cases. Though arbitrarily fixed limits may seem unjust and unfair to some
people, however, they are most logical insofar as there is rarely any justice in old claims – and
evidence also gets destroyed, hence keeping remedy alive serves no useful purpose.

PROVISION OF THE ACT:

In our country, the Limitation Act, 1963 is the legislation that governs the period within which a
suit is to be filed, with relevant provisions for delay, condonation thereof etc. The principle that
pervades statutes of limitation at common law is that ‘limitation extinguishes the remedy, but not
the right' this means that the legal right itself is not defeated, but only the right to claim it in a
court of law is extinguished. An exception to this general rule is the law of prescriptive rights,
whereby the right itself is destroyed. Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 proclaims:“Section
27: Extinguishment of Right to Property 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, in Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 establishes the law of adverse
possession as it stands in India today. These two Articles both prescribe a period of twelve years
within which the right to claim a particular property is extinguished, but the two differ in so far
as the date on which such period of limitation begins to run.Article 64 deals with cases where the
dispute is over possession not necessarily based title, and in such cases the period of limitation
runs from the time when the plaintiff was dispossessed of the property.Article 65 deals with
cases where the dispute is over the title as such also, and in such cases the period of limitation
runs from the time when the defendant becomes adverse to that of the plaintiff.

ELEMENTS OF THE ACT:

One must note that the law of adverse possession is no longer what it used to be, a tool of a
powerful squatter buttressed by the lack of awareness on part of the true owner and an ancient
law. Today, the law of adverse possession is viewed with great circumspection by the judiciary,
and this is a trend that commenced abroad.The Act created exceptions to the normal statute of
limitations in addition to the previous ones of fraud and mistake. It introduced an exception if for
example; the permission of the court had been gained to bring a case or the "material facts" of
the case included "facts of a decisive character" which the claimant was not aware of until after
the expiry of the statute of limitations.
Where these two requirements were fulfilled, a case could be brought as long as it was within
twelve months of the claimant finding out the "facts of a decisive character". The same principles
applied if the injured parties were dead and the claim was being brought on behalf of his estate or
dependants.
Procedure to get litigation from the Act
The Limitation Act, 1963, a prescribed limitation with a view to see that a litigant does not drag
on the litigation. Section 5 gives an opportunity to a litigant to file applications beyond the
prescribed period of limitation provided; he is able to establish that he was prevented by
sufficient cause from approaching the Court within the said period. Even though the explanation
for the day-to-day delay is not being insisted by the Courts, the litigant has to nevertheless
furnish the satisfactory explanation for filing the application beyond the prescribed period of
limitation. This responsibility on the part of the litigant is much more in cases of abnormal
delays, for by such delays right came to be vested in his adversary and such a right cannot be
easily taken away by making unauthorized liberal approach by the Court.

SOME IMPORTANT AREAS OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION.

S.4 – is based on the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” – Act of Court shall prejudice
no man, and “lex non cogit ad impossibilia”. When the period of limitation of filing a suit,
formation of an application or filing an appeal expires on the day when the court is closed
(completely or during any part of its working hours) the same can be done on the day when court
re-opens. In a catena of decisions, problems arose as – case was filed in a wrong court and then
S.4 was attempted to be read together with S.14 – to exclude that period. However, this
contention was negatived by the SC in Ami Chand v. UOI (1973) placing reliance up PC
Decision in Maqbul Ahmed v. Pratap Narain. That to gain the benefit of S.14 – original suit
should have been filed within the prescribed period. Which was not the case here – as S.4 being a
principle of exception allows filing after PP is over as opposed to one excluding the period or the
POL. Hence the court for the purposes of S.4 means proper court.

S. 5 also is a principle of exception – which allows filing (appeal & applications (other than
O.21) after the expiry of Prescribed Period – if sufficient cause is shown. The phrase ‘sufficient
cause’ has to be interpreted liberally, keeping in mind at all times that a litigant normally does
not stand to benefit from delay – on the contrary, there is always a high chance of his losing his
right altogether. Hence an interpretation that advances substantial justice has to be accorded.
Court’s have to show utmost consideration to a suitor unless ill-intention or negligence is
attributable to him. In this regard, barring a few decisions, courts have repeatedly refused to
make special exceptions in favor of the government, notwithstanding the impersonal machinery.
However, J.Chandrachud however in G.Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition officer (1988)
has held that a certain amount of latitude is not entirely impermissible. Taking cue of this lower
courts have been apparently letting the burden of proof of discharging ‘sufficiency’ fall light
upon the government. Which is a prudent practice, since in a variety of cases – the adage “what
is everyone’s is nobody’s in actuality’ becomes true – and it is the taxpayer/revenue that suffers
when the government lapses.

S.6/7/8 – together represent a well-formulated legislative scheme wherein – limitation period is

excluded during the period when litigant could not have sued on account of
minority/insanity/idiocy. However such disability should be present at the time from which the
period of limitation is to be reckoned. Subsequent disability/inability would not stop the
continuous running of time (S.9). However strict application of this rule would have done
injustice to another party, insofar as their rights would be uncertain for long periods of time. To
counter this – full period of limitation to be accorded after disability ceases is elongated to a
maximum of 3 years. This strikes a perfect balance of conflicting interests of the disabled and the
other party.

The Principle of Continous running of time is suspended only in one situation where – the hand
to give & receive is the same i.e to prevent conflict of interest and duty. This is envisaged in S.9
Proviso – wherein during the time a debtor holds the letter of administration of his creditor, the
period of limitation for recovery of debt stands suspended.

S.10 – envisages the principle of no limitation in matters of trust expressly created for specific
purposes. In common parlance a trustee is not immune from legal proceedings with respect to
any suit relating to property in his hands as a trustee, by any length of time.

S.11 – makes clear that the period of limitation has to be seen w.r.t lex fori – i.e the law of the
forum where the action is brought and not the one where the contract was formed (lex loci
contractus)

S.12 – excludes the day from the Period of Limitation is to be reckoned, plus when a
decree/order is appealed against the date of judgment – the time properly required in obtaining a
copy of the judgment/decree.

S.13 – provides for a situation where leave to sue in forma pauper is sought (u/o 33 of the CPC)
is rejected – and the applicant later pays up the court fees. This principle deems court fee as paid
in the first instance, and negatives the chances of a situation where period of limitation has
lapsed during the prosecution of such application.

S.14 – a principle frequently pushed into action – where a person spends time pursuing a remedy
in a court which from jurisdictional incompetency is unable to try it. However if the person does
so without due diligence i.e without due care and caution. He is not allowed to exclude that
period from the overall period of limitation. Here a little flexibility is projected by the courts as
at least some amount of lack of diligence/indiscretion is implicit in very act of filing it in the
wrong court, however the same should not amount to a complete carelessness – if the benefit of
this section is to be sought.

S.15 also excludes certain periods – for eg : where filing of a suit or execution application is
stayed – the period during which the stay operates is excluded in computing the period of
limitation. Other exclusions include – time taken in taking a sanction/permission or where the
defendant(s) are outside India, or where a purchaser at a court auction seeks to sue for possession
– the period during which such sale in which he gets title is sought to be set aside – is excluded.

CONCLUSION:
The Limitation and compensation of delay are the two effective implementations in the quickly
solving the cases and sound litigation. The law on limitation keeps a balance and check on
pulling of cases and prescribes time period within which the suit can be filed and the time
available within which the person can get the remedy conveniently. The law of compensation of
delay keeps a check on the pulling of cases and prescribes a period of time within which the suit
can be filed and also the time available within which the person will get the remedy
conveniently. The law compensation of delay keeps the principle of natural justice alive and also
states the very fact that different folks may need a different problem as and also the same
sentence or a singular rule might not apply to all or any of them within the same approach. So, it
is essential to hear them and judge accordingly whether or not they fit within the standards of the
judgment or whether they deserve a second chance.