IMPORTANCE OF LIMITATION IN LAW

SLIDE 1

INTRODUCTION

 The law of limitation finds its roots in the maxim “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 Limitation Act, 1963 (Act hereafter) prescribes different periods of

limitation for filing of suits, appeals or applications.

 The statute of limitation are statutes of repose because they extinguish

stale demands and quiet titles.

SLIDE 2

WHAT IS THE LAW OF LIMITATION

The ‘Law of Limitation’ prescribes the time-limit for different suits within,
which an aggrieved person can approach the court for redress or justice. The
suit, if filed after the exploration of the time-limit, is struck by the law of
limitation. It's basically meant to protect the long and established user and
to indirectly punish persons who go into a long slumber over their rights.

SLIDE 3

PURPOSE OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION

 The primary objective of limitation laws is to ensure fairness and prevent

injustice caused by delayed claims.
 The Law provides a remedy for every breach of a Legal right provided
action for remedy is taken on time.
SLIDE 4

DIFFERENCE B/W PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PRESCRIBED PERIOD

OF LIMITATION

 The period of Limitation is Defined under Section 2(j) of the Limitation

Act, 1963, it refers to the time frame within which a suit, appeal, or
 application must be filed. The Act provides specific periods for different
types of cases in its Schedule.
 The prescribed period of Limitation is Defined under Section 2(j)
Explanation of the Act, it means the period of limitation computed in
accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. It includes
extensions, exclusions, or special provisions applicable to computing
the limitation period.

SLIDE 5

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRES?

 If a limitation period does apply and it expires, it may be difficult or

impossible to commence legal proceedings, even if your case has merit.
It is not necessary that the claim actually be heard in court within the
prescribed limitation period.

SLIDE 6

EVOLUTION OF LIMITATION LAWS IN INDIA

 The Limitation Act, 1963, is the prevailing law, eliminating racial or
religious distinctions and providing a comprehensive framework.
 The law of limitation is based on public policy, aiming to secure
social stability by preventing prolonged disputes.
SLIDE 7
LEGAL PROTECTION AGAINST ENDLESS LITIGATION
 The statute of limitations guarantees litigants that after a prescribed
period, their cause of action rests, preventing indefinite legal battles.

 It does not cure an existing wrong but prevents further disputes by

imposing a time bar.

SLIDE 8

CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION

ACT, 1963

 Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 enables the court to condone the
delay in filing an appeal or application, if the appellant or applicant
satisfies the court that he had "sufficient cause" for not preferring an
appeal or making an application within such period.
 The condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an
application or appeal is the existence of sufficient cause. Whether the
explanation furnished for the delay would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ or
not would dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be any
straight jacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation
furnished by the applicant/appellant for the delay in taking steps.
Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an
exception, when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be
imputed to the defaulting party

SLIDE 9

CASE LAW

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector,

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others v. Mst. Katiji and others
1987 (2) SCC 107 (SC)] held that court should adopt liberal and
justice oriented approach for the purposes of condonation of delay.
Relevant portion from the case of Mst. Katiji (supra) is reproduced as
under:-
(1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal
late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being

thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that
a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

(3) “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every
second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
sense pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted

against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred
for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a non-deliberate delay.

(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on

account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant
 does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious
risk.
(6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its
power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is
capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”

SLIDE 10

POLICY AND OBJECT OF LIMITATION

 The law of limitation is based on public policy and expediency. It

does not create new rights but imposes a time bar on enforcing an
existing right.
 Courts exist to deliver justice by adjudicating disputes. However,
justice must be timely; otherwise, it becomes ineffective.
SLIDE 11

LIMITATION ENCOURAGES DILIGENCE

 Delays result in unfairness

 Ensuring prompt legal redress
 Avoiding strategic delays
SLIDE 12

LIMITATION ENSURES CERTAINTY

 Protection against perpetual litigation

 Finality in legal matters
 Peace and justice
SLIDE 13
PREVENTION OF FRAUD, PERJURY, AND OPPRESSION

 Risk of fraudulent claims

 Prevents oppressive litigation
 Suppressing perjury

SLIDE 14
LIMITATION DOES NOT EXTINGUISH RIGHTS, ONLY REMEDIES

 The right continues to exist A debt does not disappear after the
limitation period expires, but the creditor can no longer legally
enforce the claim through a lawsuit.
 Only procedural, not substantive Limitation laws do not take
away vested rights, but they restrict the timeframe in which a claim
can be filed.
SLIDE 15
LIMITATION IN CASES WHERE NO PERIOD IS PRESCRIBED
Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere
in this Division.
Three years.
When the right to apply accrues
What is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances if an action is
delayed excessively, courts may deny relief even if no specific time limit is
mentioned. Article 136
Protection against abuse If there were no reasonable time limits, litigants
could misuse legal procedures to reopen settled matters at will.
SLIDE 16
CASE LAWS
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr
vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 (2013) 14 SCC
81 (SC) held that “Even though limitation harshly affects rights of a party,
but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by a statute” The
Supreme Court has gone on to state that equity is not a ground to extend the
limitation period by condoning the delay if there is no “sufficient cause”. The
reason assigned by the Supreme Court is that an unlimited period of
litigation would have an impact of rendering a sense of insecurity and
uncertainty, depriving a successful party of enjoying the fruits of litigation as
a finality to a judgment is postponed.

SLIDE 17
In another case, Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer,
(2013) 10 SCC 765 (SC) the Division Bench of the Supreme Court
observed, the limitation Act applies to courts and not to quasi-judicial
authorities. Furthermore, it was held that the law of limitation may possibly
austerely affect a particular party but, nonetheless has to be applied when
the statute prescribes the same. Moreover, that the Court(s) are devoid of
the power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even if the
statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular
party.
SLIDE 18
The Division Bench of the Supreme court In the Case of O.P. Kathpalia vs.
Lakhmir Singh, (1984) 4 SCC 66 : AIR 1984 SC 1744 (SC) held that If
the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it
would be a ground to condone the delay in prefering the appeal.
In the case of Sitaram Ramcharan and others v. M.N. Nagrashana
Authority AIR 1960 SC 260 (SC) a Division bench of the Apex Court
observed that “sufficient cause must cover the whole period of delay”. It
shall be incumbent upon the party to satisfy the court that he had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal or making application within prescribed
time. Relevant portion from the case of Sitaram Ramcharan (supra) is
reproduced as under:- “It cannot be disputed that in dealing with the
question of condoning delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act the party has to
satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or
making the application within the prescribed time, and this was always been
understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole of the
period of delay.”
SLIDE 19
CONCLUSION

The primary objective that the Limitation Act, 1963 is to place a bar on the
time period wherein the distressed party can institute a suit/application/offer
within the court. The term limitation should to be literally translated as the
term itself states it’s meaning i.e. confinement or circumstances which are
limited.

Condonation of delay is the remedy given to the parties in the event that
they fail to approach the competent court. This condonation has been
worked out as a discretionary power of the court. The legal standpoint in
India has been unusually permissive and has ruled in support of the
aggrieved party.