CPC SEM EXAM NOTES

CPC MODULE V NOTES

MODULE V TOPICS:

Module V: Limitation Act

The Limitation Act-General Provisions as to the Bar of Limitation and Extension of the
prescribed time-rules of exclusion -Acquisition and Extinguishment of Proprietary rights by the
virtue of limitation

TOPIC 1: The Limitation Act-General Provisions as to the Bar of Limitation and Extension
of the prescribed time-rules of exclusion -Acquisition and Extinguishment of Proprietary
rights by the virtue of limitation

Introduction to the Law of Limitation (IN SHORT)

The Law of Limitation is classified as a procedural law rather than a substantive one. It is
governed by the principle of lex fori, meaning it is the law of the court where the legal
proceedings are initiated. The purpose of this law is deeply rooted in public policy—to ensure
that legal remedies are pursued within a reasonable time frame and to discourage frivolous, stale,
or long-delayed claims.

The term “limitation” refers to a statutorily prescribed time period within which a person must
bring a suit, appeal, or application before a court. Once this period lapses, the right to seek
judicial remedy is generally barred.

Salient Features of the Limitation Act, 1963

• Commencement: The Act came into force on 1st January 1964.

• Territorial Extent: It extends to the whole of India.
• Structure:

o 32 Sections divided across 5 parts.

o A Schedule containing 137 Articles classified into three divisions:

▪ First Division (Articles 1–113) – Pertains to suits.

▪ Second Division (Articles 114–117) – Pertains to appeals.

▪ Third Division (Articles 118–137) – Pertains to applications.

Nature and Scope

 1. Exhaustive Law: The Limitation Act is exhaustive in nature for all matters explicitly
covered by it. Courts cannot extend the limitation period by analogy or equitable grounds
beyond the provisions of the Act.

2. Adjective (Procedural) Law: Although it governs the procedure rather than the
substance, in certain instances, it also influences substantive rights. For instance, under
Section 27, the law extinguishes rights in cases involving adverse possession.

3. Prospective and Retrospective Operation:

o Section 31 of the Act allows for both prospective and retrospective application.
o In Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court held
that limitation statutes apply retrospectively to proceedings initiated after their
enactment, even if the cause of action accrued earlier.

Key Legal Maxims Underlying the Law of Limitation

• Interest Republicae ut sit finis litium: It is in the interest of the State that there should
be an end to litigation.

• Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt: The law helps those who are vigilant
and not those who sleep on their rights.

Period of Limitation and Its Calculation

• As per Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act:

o “Period of limitation” refers to the time period prescribed in the Schedule for any
suit, appeal, or application.

o “Prescribed period” refers to the period computed in accordance with the

provisions of the Act.

• If a claim is initiated after the expiration of the prescribed period, it is deemed as time-
barred, and the court must dismiss it under Section 3, even if the limitation is not
pleaded by the defendant.

Commencement of Limitation

• The starting point of limitation varies depending on the nature of the case.

• In Trustees of Port Bombay v. The Premier Automobile (1971), the court observed that the
limitation begins from the date the cause of action arises—i.e., when the plaintiff first
becomes entitled to sue.

Limitation Bars the Remedy, Not the Right

 • As held in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha (1992), limitation does not
extinguish the right, but merely bars the remedy.

• Exception - Section 27: In cases of adverse possession, after the lapse of the limitation
period, the owner’s title is extinguished.

Condonation of Delay – Section 5

• This provision allows a party to seek an extension of time for filing an appeal or
application beyond the prescribed period, provided they can show sufficient cause for
the delay.
• The term sufficient cause is interpreted liberally by courts to advance the cause of
justice, but not in a manner that rewards negligence or indifference.

Special Provisions

1. Court Holidays:

o As per Section 4, if the limitation period expires on a day when the court is
closed, the suit, appeal, or application may be filed on the next working day.

2. Limitation Act and Writ Jurisdiction:

o The Limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of
the Constitution.

o In Rajmata V.R. Scindia v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1984), the Supreme Court
clarified that although no statutory period applies, the High Courts may refuse to
entertain writs filed after unreasonable delays.

LIMITATION ACT (IN DETAIL)

I. Introduction to the Limitation Act, 1963

The Limitation Act, 1963 is a fundamental law in India that establishes the time frame within
which a person can file a suit, appeal, or application in court. The core idea is that stale claims
are not allowed to be raised after a significant amount of time has passed, thus ensuring prompt
action and preventing injustice due to long delays. The Act covers all civil matters, including
torts, contracts, and property-related disputes.

II. General Provisions of the Limitation Act

A. Section 3: Bar of Limitation

• Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the foundational provision that bars the filing of
suits, appeals, or applications if the prescribed time for initiating such actions has
 expired. This is a strict provision aimed at preventing parties from filing suits after a
considerable lapse of time.

• Example: If a person wishes to file a contract dispute, and the limitation period for such
disputes is 3 years, the suit must be filed within 3 years from the date the cause of action
arose. If not, the suit is barred.

B. Section 4: Exclusion of Time in Case of Court Holidays

• This section addresses situations where the limitation period expires on a day when the
court is closed, such as during public holidays. In such cases, the time for filing the suit is
extended to the next working day.

• Example: If the last day for filing a suit falls on a public holiday, the plaintiff can file the
suit on the next working day, and the court will consider it as timely.

C. Section 5: Extension of Limitation Period

• Section 5 allows for the extension of time in filing an appeal or application in cases
where there has been a delay beyond the prescribed time. The party must show that
they were unable to file the appeal in time despite exercising due diligence.

• Time Limit: An appeal must be filed within the prescribed time (for example, 30 days for
appeals), but if delayed, the court may extend it if the delay is explained satisfactorily.

• The delay must be reasonable, and the court must be convinced that the delay was due to
genuine reasons, not negligence.

• Case Law:

o State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972): The

Supreme Court explained that the delay in filing an appeal could be condoned if
the applicant shows a sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant must show that
they were unable to file the appeal within time due to an excusable reason.

III. Extension and Exclusion of Time

A. Section 6: Legal Disability

• If a person is minors, or of unsound mind, or otherwise legally disabled, the limitation

period is excluded for the period during which they are under such disability.
 • The time will not count until the disability ceases. Once the disability ends (e.g., a minor
turns 18), the limitation period will begin running from that date.

o Example: A person who is mentally ill and unable to file a suit due to their
condition will have their limitation period extended once their mental condition
improves.

B. Section 9: Computation of Period of Limitation

• This section specifies how the limitation period is to be computed. It states that the
period is calculated from the date of the cause of action unless an exception (such as
fraud, mistake, or disability) exists.

C. Section 10: Suit for Money or Goods – Interruption or Change in Possession

• If a suit involves money or goods, and there is an interruption of possession by someone

who is wrongfully keeping them, the period of limitation will be extended during that
period of wrongful possession.

IV. Rules of Exclusion of Time

The Limitation Act also provides specific rules for the exclusion of time under certain
circumstances that prevent a person from filing a suit or appeal within the prescribed limitation
period.

A. Section 12: Exclusion of Time in Cases of Fraud or Mistake

• Time during which the party is fraudulently prevented from initiating legal proceedings
or is under a mistake of fact is excluded from the limitation period.

• Case Law:

o Lalji v. Ramji (1952): The court allowed the time for limitation to be excluded in
cases where the delay in filing a suit was due to fraud or deliberate concealment
of material facts by the defendant.

B. Section 13: Exclusion of Time for Appeals

• In case an appeal is made in a suit or application, the time is excluded from the limitation
period as long as the appeal is pending.

V. Acquisition and Extinguishment of Proprietary Rights by Limitation

One of the most significant concepts under the Limitation Act is adverse possession. This refers
to the acquisition of ownership of property through continuous and exclusive possession over a
period of time, even without the consent of the actual owner.

A. Section 27: Extinguishment of Right to Property

• Section 27 provides that no suit or application shall be maintained to recover

immovable property after the expiration of 12 years from the date when the right to the
property was first denied.

• Adverse Possession: If someone possesses land or property for a continuous period of 12

years without the permission of the rightful owner, and the possession is open, exclusive,
and without interruption, the possessor may acquire title to the property.

B. Conditions for Adverse Possession

1. Continuous Possession: The possession must be uninterrupted for the statutory period of
12 years.

2. Exclusive Possession: The possessor must exclude the true owner from possession.

3. Hostile or Adverse Possession: The possession must be adverse, meaning it must be

without the consent of the true owner.

4. Knowledge of Possession: The true owner must have knowledge of the possession or
should have had reasonable means to know about it.

• Example: A person who has occupied a piece of land continuously for 12 years, without
the permission of the owner, and without the owner taking action to reclaim the land, can
file a suit for declaring their title to the property through adverse possession.

C. Section 28: Continuing Trespass or Possession

• If the trespasser or adverse possessor continues in possession of the property during the
limitation period, the limitation period is renewed after every 12-year cycle.

D. Section 29: Effect of Limitation on Actions Concerning Movable Property

• This section provides that when it comes to the possession or ownership of movable
property, the limitation period for recovery is three years, and the clock starts running
when the property is wrongfully detained.

VI. Case Law on Adverse Possession

1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954)

 o This case emphasized that adverse possession is a legal way to acquire title to
immovable property and clarified that the adverse possessor must prove
continuous possession for the statutory period (12 years) to claim ownership.

2. Bangalore Development Authority v. N. Vasudeva Reddy (2010)

o The Supreme Court held that adverse possession is not just about continuous
possession but also about exclusivity and adversity to the original owner’s rights.
The court held that simply being in possession does not make one an adverse
possessor.
3. Gulab Singh v. Raghunath (2010)

o The court ruled that in the case of adverse possession, if the rightful owner is not
aware of the possession, the time does not start running for the true owner until
they discover the wrongful possession.

4. Prakash v. G. K. Ramaswamy (2002)

o The Supreme Court ruled that constructive possession of property is enough for
adverse possession. The claimant need not be physically present, as long as they
exercise control over the property and have the intent to possess it.