.jpg)
Srijan Sachan
Babu Banarasi Das University
Introduction
In India, the limitation periods are governed by “the Limitation Act, 1963”. the Limitation Act,1963 establishes certain time frames for filing the suits or appeals in courts. It also prescribes certain lifespan for legal remedies. The act aims to ensure that justice is timely given and equity in suits is maintained, which may balance the rights of plaintiffs and the need to protect defendants.
The Limitation Act,1963, is incorporated in the legal vocabulary of India. It lays down the period in which the parties have to go to the courts so as to claim their legal rights. The courts are given the power to dismiss the plaintiff, if it is filed beyond the time limit set by the Limitation Act, 1963. The Limitation Act, 1963, had its origins in the United Kingdom. Therefore, to comprehend the Limitation Act 1963, we must first appreciate its evolution.
The law of limitation follows the principle of “interest reipublicautsit finislithium” which states that in the interest of the state as a whole, there should be a limit to litigation and “vigilant bus nondormientibusjura subveniunt” which means the law will assist only those who sleep upon it, in simple words, law support only those who work ethically. The law of limitation specifies the statutory time frame within which a person may initiate a legal proceeding. If a suit is filed after the expiry of the prescribed time, then it may restrict the plaintiffs to bring asuit in the courts. It mandates to brought the case into the court under the specified time.
Exceptions under the Limitation Act, 1963
· Disability: Under Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963, certain liberties were given to file a suit, if the suit was filed by a minor, insane or mentally unsound at the time the cause of action arose, the limitation period begins when the disability ceases. If multiple disabilities exist, the limitation period starts after the last disability ends.
· Confession of Judgment: Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963,where a debtor confesses to the existence of a debt before the expiry of the limitation period, a new period of limitations begins to run from the date of this confession. This acknowledgment needs to be in writing and must be ratified by the party liable.
· Misrepresentations or Errors: Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963,if a cause of action against which a limitation period applies is based on or relates to fraud or otherwise, the limitation period shall be computed only from the time the fraud is discovered or in case of a caveat subscription, when the facts occurred, as the case may be. This prevents the scorned party from bringing the claim too ‘early’, that is before the fraudulent or mistaken situation has been revealed or ought to have been revealed against the said party.
· Partial Payments on Debt: Under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if a debtor pays a portion of such a sum when it is still within the limitation period, he shall be considered to have made a fresh claim from the date of the partial payment.
· Time Taken in Good Faith Litigation: Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the plaintiff has, in good faith, pursued another civil action in a court that had no authority, the days spent during that course of action shall not be computed within the statutory time limit.
· Judgment Anxiety Defined: Under Part 15 of the Limitation Act 1963, there may be several legal barriers such as an injunction or a stay of proceedings which may halt the course of time until a given obstacle is removed.
· Government Contracts: Under Section 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there is a time limit of three years for raising any suits against the government or its officials in their official capacity, which begins to run from the date that the right to sue arises; in some instances, this period may be prolonged.
The above-mentioned exceptions were made, in order to ensure justice, equity, and fairness under the Limitation Act, of 1963 by giving liberalization under certain circumstances.
Reasons to create such exceptions under the Limitation Act
Laws were made to protect the people, and every law which was made has a reason behind it. Similarly, in the Limitation Act every exception has a reason –
· Legal Disability: In some cases, where the party entitled to bring an action is a minor or of unsound mind or is otherwise incapacitated at the time cause of action accrues, for these cases the Limitation Act, gives liberties in the period to file a case. The case of Ram Nath Sahu and Ors v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors (2002), emphasizes the need to provide liberalization under the Limitation Act. Especially in the cases where the delay in filing the suits may be reasonable. This case has drawn frameworks for the exceptions under the Limitation Act.
· Deceit or Blunder: For the instance, that a case is initiated due to fraud or a blunder, the time limit shall be counted from the point of the fraud being uncovered or the error being appreciated. In the case of Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court held that the courts have discretionary powers to condone delays under Section 5 of the Act, but such discretion should be exercised legally not arbitrarily to any provision.
· Partial Settlement of Debt: In instances where a portion of the debt is settled before the expiration of the limitation period, the limitation period shall run from the date of the last payment made. The State of Maharashtra v. M.N. Kaul (1967), case law deals with exceptions provided for the government. It emphasizes that the Limitation Act applies to both private individuals and the government in the same way, with no extra exceptions or privileges granted under the Act.
· Force Majeure: Outbreak of war, natural calamities, or any other forms of uncontrollable occurrences may be a basis for excusing late filing of suits after the time limit set within the law has expired. In the case of V. Kalyanaswamy (Dead) by Lrs. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (2020),the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to seek relief provided for in the Limitation Act comes to an end after the stipulated time has lapsed; and that this rule applies without exception to the facts of the case.
· Periods of Litigation: In cases, where the plaintiff was in a court which had no authority to deal with the dispute, or pursuing some other legal proceedings in good faith, the duration spent in those proceedings may be extended from the time limit.
· Sufficient Cause: If the appellant shows sufficient cause for not filing within the limitation period, the court may delay the suit.
These exceptions were made to protect the equity of justice from the adverse effects of rigid timelines in such situations where there exist reasonable explanations for the postponements in question in legal systems. The above-mentioned case laws have framed the exceptions under the Limitation Act and liberalized it under certain situations.
Problems arising in the suits due to exceptions in the Limitation Act of 1963
The exceptions in the Act are designed to maintain equity and fairness in the judiciary system because in certain cases, these exceptions were applied in an injustice manner.
These cases demonstrate the injustice caused due to the liberalization provided under the Act-
Judicial delays caused due to Section – 5 of the Limitation Act
· Laxmi Narayan v. Hari Prasad (2001): In this case, the court faced delay because of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It allows condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The plaintiff will benefit through this provision of the Act, despite the delay in filing the appeal, which prolonged the final decision, as happened in this case.
· Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. v. MstKatji&Ors. (1987): This is the landmark case, which sets the precedent for the exceptions under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court highlighted that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 should be interpreted liberally. The state’s appeal was filed after the prescribed period and it was accepted, but this acceptance elicited fears about the worship of the legal rule on limitation periods and hence its application in the dispensation of justice.
· Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998): The Supreme Court held that negligence on the part of the litigant cannot always be a just cause for condoning delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Nevertheless, in this instance, despite the negligence, the delay was allowed which exposes further how the exceptions under the Limitation Act facilitate the already protracted processes.
Judicial delays caused due to Section – 12 of the Limitation Act
· Union of India v. Ram Charan (1964): In this case, the delay was condoned under Section 12 of the Limitation Act (which excludes time taken to obtain a copy of the decree). The decision emphasized how such exceptions can lead to considerable delays in the final resolution of cases.
· State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972): The Supreme Court in this case, addressed the issue of delay in filing the appeal as the state sought condonation under Section 12. The state applied for absorption in their appeal to the unnecessary delays that were partly administrative in nature thus leading to delay in the administration of justice.
These cases stemmed from delays in the administration of justice due to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of 1963. In most of these instances, the exceptions sought to serve justice, but the results were quite the opposite. It should be considered that the exceptions under The Limitation Act, of 1963 were made to promote greater justice and equity in the suit, but due to a lack of codifications, these exceptions may become loopholes and may cause troubles for the judiciary.
Conclusion
Hence, the exceptions under the Limitation Act may cause trouble for the judiciary, but it should be considered that these exceptions were made to promote equity and justice in the judiciary and they performed their task in a good manner. The provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Limitation Act, concerning time limitation are not absolute. There are instances when the interests of justice demand that an action, that is otherwise barred by time limitation, should nonetheless be allowed. These provisions prevent abuse of process, while also allowing the court to counterbalance situations where genuine reasons for delay are offered. These provisions may introduce a measure of flexibility in the otherwise rigid practice of law. Section 6 of the Act is designed to protect the interests of people who are unable to take care of themselves for legal purposes, like children or individuals suffering from psychiatric conditions, in that they are allowed to commence any action only after the legal incapacity is removed. It is also shown in the case laws that time limits for filing a plaint were at times extended for a plaintiff who was a minor at the time of instituting the suit, to ensure that justice was served.
Similarly, in cases involving power dynamics or errors, the statute stipulates that the limitation period begins only when the fraud is discovered or the mistake comes to light. The court in these case laws also permitted the extension of time limits because the plaintiff came to know of the fraud after the limitation period had passed. Hence, it prevents wrongdoers from taking advantage of their fraud as long as the victim did not know about the fraud within the original stipulated period of filing the claim. There are many more cases, where these exceptions have played a crucial role in providing justice in the suits.
The court can consider the specific circumstances of individual cases since it allows for exceptions for “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act and its various exceptions put instruments in the hands of the judiciary to ensure that the extreme decisions of the limitation periods do not bind justice, by ensuring that even genuine causes are facilitated and determined in a court of law. The Limitation Act aims to promote speedy judicial decisions, and the exceptions were made to maintain the balance between equity and justice under the Act.
References
Comentários