Limitation Act is the Act that prescribes the time limit or period of limitation for certain suits in civil matters so that the aggrieved party may apply within the limited time provided to them to file a suit or approach the court for justice.Limitation means to limit something, or a restriction, or circumstances which are limited. In other words, limitation is the act of limiting something or circumstances which restrict something.
- The Law of Limitation is a Procedural Law.
- It is Lex Fori (the law of the court in which a proceeding is brought) and is founded on Public Policy.
- The word limitation in its literal terms means a restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited. The law of limitation is prescribed as the time limit given for different suits to the aggrieved person within which they can approach the court for redress or justice.
- The Law of Limitation ensures that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and avail the remedy promptly.
Evolution of the Limitation Act 1963
The Limitation Act 1963 evolved through various stages to become the comprehensive statute it is today. The journey began in 1859 with the introduction of Act XIV of 1859, which was the first law stating limitation in India. This Act was subsequently repealed and replaced by the Limitation Acts of 1871, 1877, and 1908. The Third Law Commission later repealed the Limitation Act of 1908, leading to the enactment of the Limitation Act 1963, which came into force on January 1, 1964. Unlike its predecessors, the Limitation Act 1963 expanded its scope to include contracts entering the territory of Jammu and Kashmir or foreign countries. Historically, before 1862, India did not have a unified law of limitation. Initially, provincial regulations governed limitations, which were eventually replaced by several Acts culminating in the Limitation Act 1963, influenced significantly by the Third Report of the Law Commission of India on the Limitation Act 1908.
Overview of the Limitation Act 1963
The Limitation Act 1963 was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the limitation of suits and other proceedings in India. The Act prescribes the time limits within which legal actions must be initiated in civil cases. The maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium” underpins the Limitation Act 1963, meaning that it is in the state’s interest to limit litigation to prevent ongoing disturbances and ensure justice. Under Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act 1963, the “period of limitation” means the time prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application as outlined in the Schedule, while the “prescribed period” means the period computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Purpose of the Limitation Act
- Interest Republicae ut sit finis litium-In the interest of society as a whole, there should be an end to litigation.
- Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt – Law will assist those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep there upon. In simpler words, the law will not help those who sleep on their rights.
Features of the Limitation Act 1963
Procedural Nature- The Limitation Act 1963 is primarily a procedural law, meaning it governs the procedures and timeframes for bringing suits to court. Unless explicitly stated otherwise by legislation, procedural laws, including the Limitation Act 1963, are retrospective in nature. This unique feature allows the Limitation Act 1963 to apply both retrospectively and prospectively, ensuring comprehensive coverage of cases regardless of when they arise.
Right vs. Remedy- One unique aspect of the Limitation Act 1963 is that it does not extinguish a citizen’s right but merely bars their remedy. This means that while the Act may prevent a judicial remedy if a claim is brought outside the specified time limit, it does not nullify the underlying right itself. In essence, the Limitation Act 1963 only bars judicial enforcement but does not take away your legal right.
Concurrent List Subject- The Limitation Act 1963 falls under the subject matter of the concurrent list mentioned in entry 13, list III of the Indian Constitution. This means both the central and state governments have the authority to legislate on matters pertaining to the Limitation Act 1963, ensuring a uniform approach across the country.
Limitation Periods- The Act prescribes various time limits for different types of suits and applications:
- Maximum Period: The maximum period of limitation extends up to 30 years.
- Minimum Period: The minimum period can be as short as 10 days.
Case Dismissal- Under the Limitation Act 1963, if applications, appeals, and suits are submitted after the allotted time, the court can dismiss them even before they are invoked as a defense. This provision ensures that only timely claims are entertained, promoting prompt legal action.
Reasons for Delay- If a plaintiff fails to file an appeal, suit, or application within the stipulated timeframe, they must provide a satisfactory reason for the delay. If the court finds the reason acceptable, it may allow the lawsuit or appeal to proceed despite being filed after the deadline.
Counterclaims- The Limitation Act 1963 treats a counterclaim as a separate suit. Therefore, a counterclaim must be initiated within the same limitation period as the original suit, ensuring fairness and consistency in legal proceedings.
Specific Limitation Periods- The Limitation Act 1963 specifies different limitation periods for various types of suits:
- 12 Years: Suits concerning trusts, immovable property, and endowments.
- 3 Years: Suits relating to declarations, contracts, claims of decrees or instruments, accounts, and lawsuits involving moveable property.
- 1 to 3 Years: Cases concerning miscellaneous matters, torts, and suits for which no specific limitation period is provided elsewhere in the Limitation Act 1963.
Exclusions in Limitation Calculation- Certain periods are excluded when computing the limitation period, such as the time required to revise, review, and file or obtain a copy of the decree, order, or appeal. This ensures that delays caused by procedural steps do not unfairly penalize the claimant.
Easement Rights- Under the Limitation Act 1963, landowners can enjoy uninterrupted usage of land for 20 years through an easement, promoting stability in property rights.
Special Consideration for Disabilities- The Limitation Act 1963 considers the legal disabilities of individuals (e.g., minors or those of unsound mind) when calculating the limitation period. The limitation period commences only after the disability ceases, ensuring that vulnerable individuals are not unfairly disadvantaged.
Comprehensive Coverage- The Limitation Act 1963 has a wide range of applications, covering almost all court proceedings. It includes definitions of ‘application’ to encompass any petition, original or otherwise, and extends to all petitions and applications under special laws.
Extended Definitions- The Limitation Act 1963 includes extended definitions for terms such as ‘application’, ‘plaintiff’, and ‘defendant’ to cover not only individuals directly involved but also those whose estate is represented by an executor, administrator, or other representatives.
Consent for Suits Against Foreign Entities- Sections 86 and 87 of the Civil Procedure Code require the consent of the Central Government before suing foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys. The Limitation Act excludes the time obtained for such consent when computing the limitation period for filing these suits.
Reduction of Limitation Period- The limitation period has been reduced from 60 years to 30 years for suits by the mortgagor for the redemption or recovery of possession of immovable property mortgaged, or in cases of mortgages for foreclosure, or suits by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government.
Appeal Against Death Sentence- The minimum period for an appeal against a death sentence passed by the High Court or the Court of Session in the exercise of original jurisdiction has been raised to 30 days from the date of the sentence.
Case Laws Related to the Limitation Act
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others vs. Mst. Katiji and others (1987)
This case dealt with the principles surrounding the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The State of Jammu and Kashmir’s appeal for enhanced land compensation was initially dismissed by the High Court due to a four-day delay. However, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the expression “sufficient cause” should be interpreted elastically to achieve substantial justice.
The Supreme Court laid down principles indicating that normally, litigants do not gain from delays; refusal to condone delays might lead to meritorious matters being dismissed; and explanations for delays should be pragmatic.
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India (1991)
This case is a significant example of how specific Legislative Acts can override the Limitation Act 1963. Following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of December 1984, the Central Government enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. This Act empowered the government to handle claims related to the disaster efficiently. The Union of India filed a compensation claim in the US courts, which was dismissed with the condition that Union Carbide accepts Indian jurisdiction, waiving the statute of limitations defense.
The Bhopal Act, under Section 8, explicitly excludes the provisions of the Limitation Act for claims registered under it, and Section 11 gives it an overriding effect over other inconsistent laws. This provision highlights that in specific instances, such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the constraints of the Limitation Act 1963, can be set aside to facilitate justice and effective claim processing.
Popat Bahiru Govardhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2013)
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the Limitation Act 1963 applies strictly to courts and not to quasi-judicial authorities. The Court emphasized that while the law of limitation might seem harsh to certain parties, it must be applied as prescribed by the statute. The judgment underscored that courts do not possess the power to extend the limitation period based on equitable grounds, even if the statutory provision causes hardship or inconvenience to a party. This case reinforced the rigid application of the Limitation Act 1963 in judicial proceedings.
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company vs the State of Bombay (1957): In this case, the court held that the limitation bars the remedy and does not extinguish the right. Thus, the lapse of time does not extinguish the person’s right.
Sri Kishan Lal vs Musammat Kashmiro And Ors (1913): In this case, it was held that the law of limitation does not bar a defence but only bars action.
