Introduction:
Limitation period is the time period within which an aggrieved party can file a suit in the courts of law for justice or righteousness. This period has been prescribed in the Limitation Act to bar legal action in different suits. According to §.2(j) of the Limitation Act 1963, ‘limitation period’ is defined as the period that has been fixed by the Schedule for any suit, and the ‘prescribed period’ means the limitation period that has been fixed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. If a suit is filed after the expiry of the specified period, it is said to be barred by limitation. The Limitation Act was first established in the year 1859 and came into operation in 1862. Today, the law relating to the limitation in the whole of India is the Limitation Act, 1963 which was enacted on 5th October, 1963 and came into force on 1st January, 1964.
Adopting such an Act that specifies the limit for filing various suits is necessary because, in absence of the same, a person may file a suit for a course of action that was done many years ago. Thus, the basic aim is to prevent unending litigation and protect the drawn-out process of punishing a person in an indirect manner by not committing any wrong. The Act is necessary to prevent unexplainable delays and discourage the filing of fraudulent claims.[1]As held by the Supreme Court in Balakrishnan vs. M.A. Krishnamurthy[2], public policy and general welfare necessitate fixed time limit for seeking redressal.[3]
Certain Provisions of the Act:
As per S. 3 even if the defence of the suit being barred by limitation is not taken up by the defendant, yet the suit will be considered as barred in accordance with the limitation Act. S.12 of the Act enumerates certain guidelines according to which the limitation period is calculated. It mentions the exclusion of the day from which such appeal or suit is to be reckoned. However, the time that is taken by the court in preparation of the decree or directive before a claim for a copy is included. People having certain legal disabilities are given privilege under the Act. A minor, an insane or, an idiot person can make an appeal enforcing his rights after his disability has ceased and the time period specified in the Act would begin from the day when such disability ceases. If a person dies and had he been alive, he would still have the right to file a suit, then such right shall be executed when the legal representative of the plaintiff is capable of instituting the suit and the time period shall begin from such date only. When a suit for which law of limitation has been prescribed under the Act, is based on the fraud of the defendant or if the suit is made as a result of the consequences of a mistake, then limitation period shall begin from the date when such fraud or mistake come into knowledge and not before. In cases where there is an acknowledgement in writing before the expiration of the prescribed time limit, and it has been signed by the person against whom the claim is being made, a fresh period of limitation would start from the date on which such written acknowledgement was made. A person can acquire the right to easement or prescription over a piece of land provided that he has been, without any obstruction, using the land continuously for a period of not less than twenty years. However, the suit for the claim must be filed within two years from the day when such obstruction is made.
Features of the Act:
The Act consists of 32 sections and 137 articles. The articles have been divided into 10 parts. First eight parts relate to distinct matters, the ninth part refers to miscellaneous matters and the tenth part relates to matters for which there is no prescribed time period. The suits for which categorization has been endeavoured do not have uniform limitation periods prescribed. An important feature of the Limitation Act,1963 is that it does not have illustrations. This suggestion was given by the Law Commission in its third report reasoning that the illustrations given are most of the times needless and ambiguous. Another important feature is that the Act is a non-discriminating one. The Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank vs. Prabha Naik held that the Act does not discriminate between individuals on the basis of class or race while indulging a person under the law.[4] The Act has a very wide application. It applies to almost all proceedings and includes not only the petitioner and the defendant but any person whose estate is represented by the application. Even if the Statute does not provide for limitation period, the same shall be governed by the Act.[5]
The Act provides for varying limitation period with respect to different subject matters. A period of twelve years is provided for suits relating to immovable property, trusts and endowments, whereas a period of three years has been provided for matters that relate to contracts, declarations, accounts, movable property, and suits that relate to decree or instruments. The time period of thirty years has been provided for suits relating to the recovery of immovable property that has been mortgaged. A period ranging from one to three years has been provided for suits that relate to torts, miscellaneous maters and the matters for which no period has been provided for elsewhere in the Act.
Conclusion:
The Act does not confer a right to file a suit rather it only provides a time period to file the suit. It does not violate the rights of the parties. In fact, it is for the greater good of the parties, since according to Halsbury’s Laws of England, most of the suits that are passed after a long delay actually have more cruelty than justice since the defendant might even have lost the evidence to contest the suit.[6]
The Act provides for a legislatively fixed period of time so that unending litigation can be avoided and general welfare of people can be promoted. The right which is not exercised for a long period of time should become non-existent after a reasonable period of time and a person who has been sleeping over his rights should be taught to be vigilant. This Act is necessary to ensure peace, mitigate fraud, accelerate diligence and prevent persecution.
References:
[1]AIR 1972 SC 1935.
[2](1998) 7 SCC 123.
[3]AIR 2001 Orissa 158.
[4]AIR 2001 SC 1968.
[5]RAMESH NIVRUTTI BHAGWAT v. DR. SURENDRA MANOHAR PARAKHE, Appeal (Civil), 1399 of 2010, Judgment Date: Oct 04, 2019.
[6]https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/object-of-the-law-of-limitation-act-1963/119804.
This article is authored by Sakshi Sharma, First-Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.
Also Read – Limitation Period of Taking Cognizance of An Offence
