Salient features of limitation act

A PROJECT OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 - (2), (LIMITATION ACT

1963), SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF B.A.LL.B. (H) (SEMESTER-VIII) IN HALDIA LAW
COLLEGE OF VIDYASAGAR UNIVERSITY

UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND SUPERVISION OF

MD. HASANUR ZAMAN SIDDIQUE

Assistant Professor -in- Law

HALDIA LAW COLLEGE

SUBMITTED BY
SAJAHAN MOLLA

REGISTRATION No. 0001482 0F 2016-2017

Roll: 60530116 No.: 5068

HALDIA LAW COLLEGE

(A PREMIER LEGAL INSTITUTION OF ICARE)
ICARE COMPLEX, P.O.: HATIBERIA, HALDIA
DIST.: PURBA MEDINIPUR
WEST BENGAL, INDIA

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A project is a joint endeavor which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion,

diligence and with support of all. I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness
to acknowledge from the bottom of my heart to all those who have helped me to put
these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete effectively and
moreover on time.

This project would not have been completed without the combined effort of my teacher,
MD. HASANUR ZAMAN SIDDIQUE Assistant Professor-in-Law, Haldia Law College whose
support and guidance was the driving force to successfully complete this project. I express my
heartfelt gratitude to him.

I am also thankful to Dr. P. k. Sahoo (Principal) and other faculty members for their
encouragement, support and inspiration both for completion of this work and for the
course study. I am equally thankful to Mr. Samir Kumar Panda (Librarian) and other staff
of the College.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with sources of research materials throughout the project and without
whom I couldn’t have completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands who
helped me out at every stage of my project.

SAJAHAN MOLLA

Place: Haldia Law College Signature

Date: 03/07/2020

2
 DECLARATION

I am SAJAHAN MOLLA this project report is my original work and have not been
submitted in any form as a part of any other project.

Information derived from the published and unpublished work of other has been
acknowledgement in the list references in given in the bibliography.

SAJAHAN MOLLA
Place:Haldia Law College Signature

Date: 03/07/2020

3
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project on the topic ‘’Salient features of limitation
act’’

Submitted by

NAME: - SAJAHAN MOLLA

Registration Number:-0001482 0F 2016-2017

Class Roll No: - 68

During 8 Semester of the B.A.LL.B course on Haldia Law College, under my guidance
th

and have been completed it successfully.

Place:Haldia Law College Signature

Date: 03/07/2020

4
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….06

2. History of the Act………………………………………………………….06-07

3. Object of the Act……………………………………………………………..07

3.1 Whether the Act is exhaustive?.............................07
3.2 Retrospective Operation…………………………….…..07-08
3.3 Limitation Bars Remedy……………………………….…....08
3.4 Limitation Does Not Bar Defence………………………..09
3.5 Application to courts…………………………………………..09
3.6 Plea of limitation: Duty of Court………………………09-10
3.7 Starting point of Limitation…………………………………10
3.8 Expiry Period of Limitation When Court is Closed.10-
11

4. Condonation of Delay…………………………………………………11-12
4.1 Sufficient Cause………………………………………………..…12
4.2 Case law: Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987)………………..13
4.2.1 Facts…………………………………………………………...13
4.2.2 Held…………………………………………………………….13
4.3 Delay by Government…………………………………………..14
4.4 Exclusion of Time……………………………………………14-16
4.5 Postponement of Limitation……………………………16-17
4.6 Extinguishment of Right…………………………………….…17
4.7 Void Order: Limitation……………………………………17-18
4.8 Case Law: Exception: Union Carbide Corporation.v.
Union of India (1991)………………………………………18-20

5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………20-21

6. References………………………………………………………………………22

5
 1. Introduction

The law of limitation finds its root in the maxims “Interest Reipublicae
Ut Sit Finis Litium” which means that in the interest of the state as a
whole there should be a limit to litigation and “vigilantibus non
dormientibus Jura subveniunt” which means the law will assist only
those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep upon
it. The law of limitation specifies the statutory time frame within
which a person may initiate a legal proceeding or a legal action can be
brought. If a suit is filed after the expiry of the time prescribed it will
be barred by the Limitation. It means that a suit brought before the
Court after the expiry of the time within which a legal proceeding
should’ve been initiated will be restricted.

2. History of the Act

The law of limitation developed in stages and finally took the shape of
the Limitation Act of 1963. Prior to 1859, there was no law of
limitation applicable to the whole of India. It was only in 1859 that a
law relating to limitation (Act XIV of 1859) was enacted that was
applicable to all the Courts. The Limitation Act was subsequently
repealed in the years 1871, 1877, 1908. The Limitation Act, 1908 was
repealed by the Third Law Commission and the Limitation Act of 1963
came into force. The 1908 Act referred only to foreign contracts
whereas the 1963 Act talked about contracts entered into the territory
of Jammu and Kashmir or in a foreign country.

Sections 86 and Section 87 of the Civil Procedure Code, 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

6
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, (AIR 2001 SC 1968) the
Supreme Court has observed that the law of limitation under the
Limitation Act, 1963 does not make any racial or class distinction while
making or indulging any law to any particular person.

3. Object of the Act

The Law of limitation prescribes a time period within which a right can
be enforced in a Court of Law. The time period for various suits has
been provided in the schedule of the Act. The main purpose of this Act
is to prevent litigation from being dragged for a long time and quick
disposal of cases which leads to effective litigation. As per the Jammu
and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, provisions of the Limitation Act
will now apply to the whole of India. The Limitation Act, 1963 contains
provisions relating to the computation of time for the period of
limitation, condonation of delay, etc. The Limitation Act contains 32
sections and 137 articles and the articles are divided into 10 parts.

3.1 Whether the Act is exhaustive?

The Limitation Act is exhaustive with respect to all matters expressly

dealt in it. It cannot be extended by analogy. Ordinarily, the Act applies
only to civil cases except in the matter expressly and specifically
provided for that purpose.

3.2. Retrospective Operation

In BK Education Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta and

Associates, the Supreme Court clarified that since the law of limitation
is procedural in nature, it will be applied retrospectively. The Supreme
Court in Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd v. Union of India observed that

7
statutes of limitation are retrospective so far as they apply to all legal
proceedings brought after their operations for enforcing causes of
action accrued earlier. In Excise and Taxation v. M/S Frigoglass India
Private Ltd, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that It is well-
settled that the law of limitation is a procedural law and operates
retrospectively unless it has been provided differently in the
amending statute. In other words, unless there is a contrary intention
manifested by express or necessary implication of the legislation itself,
procedural law is generally retrospective law.

3.3 Limitation Bars Remedy

Section 3 lays down the general rule that if any suit, appeal or
application is brought before the Court after the expiry of the
prescribed time then the court shall dismiss such suit, appeal or
application as time-barred. The law of limitation only bars the judicial
remedy and does not extinguish the right. In other words, It means
that the statute of limitation prescribes only the period within which
legal proceedings have to be initiated. It does not restrict any period
for setting up a defence to such actions. Hence, the original right to
suit is not barred. However, Section 27 is an exception to this rule.

The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors v. Surendra

Prasad Sinha held that 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.

In case of Against the Judgement in As 15/1996 v. K.J Anthony, the

Court held that a defendant in a suit can put forward any defence
though such defence may not be enforceable in the court, for being
barred by limitation.

It was held in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing v. State of

Bombay that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy but does
not extinguish the debt.

8
3.4 Limitation Does Not Bar Defence

The law of limitation does not restrict the defendant if he raises a

legitimate plea in his defence even though the suit is time-barred. It
was held in Rullia Ram Hakim Rai v. Fateh Singh, the bar of limitation
does not stand in the way of defence. It only bars action and it is only
its recovery that is time-barred. There is no provision that prohibits or
prevents a debtor from clearing his time-barred outstandings.

The Supreme Court observed in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v.

Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, the Limitation Act takes away the
plaintiff’s remedy to enforce his rights by bringing an action in a court
of law, but it does not place any restriction on the defendant to put
forward his defence though such defence is barred by limitation and
is unenforceable in the Court.

3.5 Application to courts

Under Section 3(c), an application by a notice of motion in a High Court

can be made when the application is presented to the proper officer
of that court. If the period prescribed for any application expires on
the day on which the court is closed, the application shall be made on
the day on which the court reopens as per Section 4.

3.6 Plea of limitation: Duty of Court

The Court is under an obligation to dismiss a suit if it is filed beyond

the time prescribed by the Limitation Act. The provisions of Section 3
are mandatory and the Court will not proceed with the suit if it is
barred by time. Under Section 3 of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that
every suit instituted, appeal preferred and the application made after
the prescribed period shall be dismissed. Even though limitation has
not been set up as a defence.

9
It was held in Craft Centre v. Koncherry Coir Factories, it is the duty of
the plaintiff to convince the Court that his suit is within time. If it is out
of time and the plaintiff relies on any acknowledgments in order to
save the limitations then he has to plead them or prove, if denied. The
Court further held that, provision of Section 3 is absolute and
mandatory and if a suit is barred by the time the court is under a duty
to dismiss the suit even at the appellate stage though the issue of
limitation may not have been raised. It was held in ICICI Bank Ltd v.
Trishla Apparels Pvt Ltd that there is no doubt that the court is duty-
bound to dismiss the suit in a case if it is barred by time even though
no such plea has been taken by the opposite party.

In Mukund Ltd v. Mumbai International Airport, it was ruled that it is

explicitly clear that when a suit is barred by limitation, the Court is
precluded from proceeding on the merits of the contentions and in
fact is obliged to dismiss the suit.

3.7 Starting point of Limitation

The time from which period of limitation begins to run depends upon
the subject matter of the case and a specific starting point of such
period is provided extensively by the Schedule in the Act. It generally
starts from the date when the summons or notice is served, or the
date on which the decree or judgment is passed, or the date on which
the event that forms the basis of the suit takes place. The Supreme
Court in Trustee’s Port Bombay v. The Premier Automobile held that
the starting point of limitation is the accrual of the cause of action.

3.8 Expiry Period of Limitation When Court is closed

When a court is closed on a certain day and the period of limitation

expires on that day, then any suit, appeal or application shall be taken
up to the Court on the day on which it reopens. This means that a party
is prevented not by his own fault but because of the Court being

10
closed on that day. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that when
the period of limitation is prescribed for any suit, appeal or application
and such period expires on a day when the Court is closed, such suit,
appeal or application shall be instituted, preferred or made on the day
on which the Court reopens. The explanation to this section mentions
that within the meaning of this Section a Court shall be deemed to be
closed on any day if during any part of the normal working of the Court
it remains closed on that day.

For instance, if a Court reopens on 1st January and the time for filing
the appeal expires on 30th December (the day on which the Court
remains closed) then the appeal can be preferred on the 1st of January
when the Court reopens.

4. Condonation of Delay

Condonation of delay means that extension of time given in certain

cases provided there is sufficient cause for such delay. Section 5 talks
about the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. It
provides that if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that
he had sufficient cause to not prefer the appeal or application within
that period, such appeal or application can be admitted after the
prescribed time. This Section further mentions that an application
made under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). The explanation states that in
ascertaining or computing the period prescribed when the applicant
or appellant has been misled by any order, practice or judgment of the
High Court. It will be a sufficient cause within the meaning of this
section.

However, If a party does not show any cogent ground for delay then
the application, suit or appeal will be rejected by the court.

In the case of State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yussuff, the court held,

whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a

11
question of fact dependant upon the circumstances of a particular
case.

4.1 Sufficient Cause

Sufficient cause means that there should be adequate reasons or

reasonable ground for the court to believe that the applicant was
prevented from being proceeding with the application in a Court of
Law.

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, it was said that the expression
“sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. In Balwant
Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors, the Supreme Court held that it is
obligatory upon the applicant to show sufficient cause because of
which he was prevented from continuing to prosecute the proceeding
in the suit. In this case, there was a delay of 778 days in filing the
application for bringing the legal representatives on record.

In Ornate Traders Private Limited v. Mumbai, the Bombay High Court

ruled that where there is sufficient cause shown and the application
for condonation of delay has moved bonafidely, the court would
usually condone the delay but where 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.

The Bombay High Court in Brij Indar Singh v. Kansi Ram observed that
the true guide for the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section
5 is whether the litigant acted with sensible and reasonable diligence
in prosecuting the appeal.

Whether an applicant has given a sufficient cause or not depends

upon the discretion of the court and the circumstances of each case.
For instance, a Court can condone the delay on medical grounds.

12
4.2 Case law: Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987)

4.2.1 Facts

In this case, an appeal was preferred by the State of Jammu and

Kashmir against the decision of enhancing the compensation in the
matter of acquisition of land for a public purpose, raising important
questions with regard to principles of valuation. An appeal for
condonation of delay was filed but was dismissed by the High Court as
time-barred because it was four days late. The State later appealed to
the Supreme Court by special leave.

4.2.2 Held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled that the expression
‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the
Court to do substantial justice to parties. The order of the High Court
dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter was
remitted back to the High Court to dispose of the appeal on merit after
affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides.

The Supreme Court also laid down certain principles to be followed by

the Court while interpreting the matter relating to condonation of
delay:

• Normally a litigant does not get the benefit by lodging a late

appeal;
• Refusal to condone delay might result in a meritorious matter
being thrown out;
• Delay must be explained in a pragmatic matter;
• A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay but
in fact, he is at serious risk;
• It must be understood that the judiciary is resected not
because of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds
but because it is capable of removing injustice.

13
4.3 Delay by Government

Under Section 25, where a property belonging to the Government

over which access and use of light or any way or watercourse or the
use of any water, have been peaceably and openly enjoyed as an
easement and as of a right by any person claiming title thereto,
without any interruption for thirty years, the right to such access and
use of light or air, or way or waterway, or use of their easement shall
be absolute and indefeasible, In case of a private property it is twenty
years.

4.4 Exclusion of Time

Section 12 to Section 15 deals with the exclusion of time under the

Limitation Act. Section 12 talks about the time that has to be excluded
for computing time of limitation in legal proceedings. Sub-section (1)
says that the day on which the cause of action arises that day shall be
excluded while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal
or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned.

The following time has to be excluded from computing the period of

limitation:

• The day on which the period of limitation for any suit, appeal
or application has been reckoned.

. In case of an appeal or an application for leave to

appeal/revision/review of a judgment:

i) The day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced.

ii) Necessary time taken for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence,
order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed.

14
 • In case of decree or order is appealed from or sought to be
revised or reviewed or an application for leave to appeal from
a decree:

i) Time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment

• In case of application to set aside an award:

i) Time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award

Explanation to this Section states that in computing the time

necessary for obtaining a copy of the decree or order the time taken
by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for
a copy of the decree or order is made shall not be excluded.

Under Section 13, where an application for leave to sue or appeal as a

pauper (indigent) has been made and rejected, the time spent by the
applicant in prosecuting in good faith shall be excluded.

Under Section 14, if a party is proceeding in good faith in a court

without jurisdiction any suit or application the time spent by the party
should be prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence and
that prosecution shall be in good faith shall be excluded.

Under Section 15, the following time shall be excluded:

• The day of the issuance and withdrawal of the stay order or

injunction.
• In case where a previous consent or sanction of the
government is required – the time spent on obtaining the
consent or sanction.
• In case of proceedings for winding up of a company- the time
during which the receiver or liquidator was appointed.
• In case of a suit for possession by a purchaser at a sale in
execution of decree- the time during which proceeding to set
aside sale has been prosecuted.

15
 • The time during which the defendant is absent from India and
under territory outside India under the administration of the
Central Government.

4.5 Postponement of Limitation

Postponement of limitation means extending the period of limitation.

Section 16 to 23 of the Act deals with the postponement of limitation.

In the following cases the period of limitation will not begin to run:

• Under Section 16: Firstly, where a person having the right to

sue or make an application has died before the right accrues
or right accrues only on the death of that person- the period
of limitation will be computed from the time when there is a
legal representative who is capable of instituting. Secondly,
where a person against whom the right to sue or make an
application would have accrued dies or would have accrued
on his death, limitation will start when there will be a legal
representative of the deceased.
• Under Section 17: Where the suit or application is based upon
fraud, mistake or concealment by fraud- the period of
limitation will not start unless the plaintiff or applicant has
discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake.
• Under Section 18: In case of an acknowledgment of liability in
respect of any property or right-a-fresh period of limitation
will be computed from the time acknowledgment was signed.
• Under Section 19: where payment on account of a debt or of
interest on legacy- a fresh period of limitation will be
computed when payment was made.
• Section 20: Section 20 is only a further explanation of section
18 and section 19. It says that under a disability the expression
‘agent duly authorised’ will include the lawful guardian,
committee, manager or agent duly authorised by such
guardian, committee or manager.

16
 • Section 21: Where a new plaintiff or defendant is added or
substituted after the institution of suit- the suit will be
deemed to be instituted when he was so made the party.
However, if the new plaintiff or defendant was added due to
a mistake in good faith and the Court is satisfied, the suit shall
be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.
• Under Section 22: Where there is a continuing breach of
contract or tort – a fresh period of limitation will start at the
moment when the breach or tort continues.
• Under Section 23: In case of suits for compensation for acts
not actionable without special damage- limitation period will
start from the time when the injury occurs.

4.6 Extinguishment of Right

General Rule that the law of limitation only bars the remedy but does
not bar the right itself. Section 27 is an exception to this rule. It talks
about adverse possession. Adverse possession means someone who
is in the possession of another’s land for an extended period of time
can claim a legal title over it. In other words, the title of the property
will vest with the person who resides in or is in possession of the land
or property for a long period. If the rightful owner sleeps over his right,
then the right of the owner will be extinguished and the possessor of
the property will confer a good title over it. Section 27 is not limited
to physical possession but also includes de jure possession. As per the
wordings of this Section, it applies and is limited only to suits for
possession of the property.

4.7 Void Order: Limitation

An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void or voidable

and can be taken up in any proceeding in any court where the validity
of the order comes into question.

17
In Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab, the court held that even for void
orders if the suit is filed then the period of limitation prescribed by the
schedule appended to the Limitation Act is applicable.

The Court in Devi Swarup v. Smt Veena Nirwani ruled that it is a well-
settled proposition that even void orders have to be challenged so
that the same can be declared as void. Even a void order continues to
have effect till the same is declared non-est.

In State of Punjab and Ors v. Gurdev Singh, where the question arose
whether for avoiding an ultra vires order of dismissal, an employee is
required to approach a court within the prescribed time by the law of
limitation. The argument was based upon the proposition that to
challenge a void order, there is no limitation period prescribed and the
aggrieved person can approach the Court at any time. The Apex Court
held that to say that a suit is not governed by the law of limitation runs
afoul to the Limitation Act. The statute of limitations was intended to
provide a time limit for all suits conceivable.

4.8 Case Law: Exception: Union Carbide Corporation. v. Union of

India (1991)

• This case involved Union Carbide (India) Ltd (UCIL) which was
a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), New
York. One of the world’s largest disaster occurred on the
fateful night of 2nd and 3rd December 1984. Methyl
Isocyanide Gas (MIC) considered the most toxic chemical in
industrial use leaked from the tanks used for its storage in the
Union Carbide Company at Bhopal causing the death of
thousands of people.
• An Act was passed by the Central Government on 23 March
1985 named the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of
Claims) Act, 1985 to authorise the Central Government to
ensure that the claims arising out of or in connection to

18
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy are dealt with effectively, swiftly and to
the best advantage of the claimant and for matters related to
it.
• The Union of India in the exercise of its power conferred by
the Act instituted an action on behalf of the victims for the
award of compensation before the US District Court, Southern
District of New York.
• Justice Keenan of the Federal District Court dismissed the case
as forum non conveniens with the condition that Union
Carbide shall consent to the jurisdiction of the Indian court
and shall waive the defence based upon the statute of
limitations.
• The Bhopal District Court made an order for payment of
compensation of rupees 350 crores as interim compensation.
This award was challenged in the High Court and the
compensation amount reduced to rupees 250 crores. Later,
both the UCC and the Union of India appealed by special leave
against the order of the High Court. The Supreme Court
recorded settlement of claims in the suit for U.S. Dollar 470
million and for the termination of the civil and criminal
proceeding. Soon petitions were filed in the Supreme Court
challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The
judgment, in this case, was pronounced on 22 December 1989
upholding the validity of the Act.
• The Bhopal Act under Section 8 provides that if a claim is
registered under the provisions of this Act then the provisions
of the Limitation Act shall be excluded. Section 8 states that in
computing, under the Limitation Act,1963 or any other law for
the time being in force, the period of limitation for the
purpose of instituting a suit or other proceeding for the
enforcement of the claim, any period after the date on which
such claim is registered under, and in accordance with, the
provisions of the Scheme shall be excluded.
• Further, by virtue of Section 11, the Bhopal Act has an
overriding effect over any other law inconsistent with this Act.

19
 Section 11 states that the provisions of this Act and of any
Scheme framed thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment
other than this Act or any instrument having effect by virtue
of any enactment other than this Act.

Hence, the Union Carbide case serves as an exception to the Limitation

Act for it excludes the Limitation Act, 1963 from the purview of the
Bhopal Act, 1985.

5. Conclusion

The law of limitation prescribes the time within which a person can
enforce his legal right. This Act keeps a check on the cases so that they
are not dragged for over a long time. This Act also recognizes the fact
that there are situations when persons instituting a suit or preferring
an appeal for a genuine cause are unable to institute a suit within the
time prescribed in the Act and the same criteria cannot be applied to
every situation.

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 pattern of limitation
for the suits under which the classifications has been attempted. 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

20
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 is received, 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.

21
 6. References

1. http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report193.pdf

2. http://www.shareyouressays.com/119798/7-main-salient-features-of-the-
limitation-act-1963

3. http://lawyerslaw.org/the-limitation-act-1963/

4. http://www.shareyouressays.com/119804/object-of-the-law-of-limitation-
act-1963

5. http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/limitationact/limitationact.html

6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317393/

7. https://www.netlawman.co.in/ia/limitation-act-1963

8.http://www.dullb.com/Downloads/Semester3/LIMITATION_STUDY%20MAT
ERIAL_SEM%203.pdf

9. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/condonation-of-delay-
and-law-of-limitation-543-1.html

22