Commentary on Law on Limitation Act, 1963

In pursuance of upsurge in demand of an updated edition of instant treatise, we resolved ourselves to publish the revised version of the same.

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 of 1963. The main objective of this Act is to prevent litigation from being dragged for a long time and quick disposal of cases which leads to effective litigation. Ordinarily, the Act applies only to civil cases except in the matter expressly and specifically provided for that purpose. The Law of Limitation only bars the judicial remedy and does not extinguish the right. 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. Thus, the original right to suit is not barred. However, Section 27 is an exception to this rule. Section 3 of the Act 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 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.

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. 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. 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. So far so, the Court is under an obligation to dismiss a suit if it is filed beyond the time prescribes the Limitation Act, 1903: provisions of Sectlon: 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.

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. Condonation of delay connotes that extension of time given in certain cases provided there is sufficient cause for such delay. 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. Whether an applicant has given a sufficient cause or not depends upon the discretion of the Court and the circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 3 of Act is adequately elastic to enable the Court to do substantial justice to parties.

We have done our best in revising the instant treatise. The latest courtroom developments have been incorporated at appropriate places in the text. A comprehensive Subject Index has also been appended for ready references. May the book enjoy appreciation from the legal fraternity?