CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1963

ASSIGNMENT
On

“THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 ”

Submitted to: Ms. MADHU SAINI

Submitted by: MS. BHAWNA TOMER

Course: - BA. LLB (Hons.), VIII th sem

Roll no. – 09, Sec : B

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am feeling highly elated to work on the topic “The Limitation

Act, 1963” under guidance of Ms. MADHU SAINI. I am very grateful to him
for his exemplary guidance. I would like to enlighten my readers regarding
this topic and I hope I have tried my best to pave the way for bringing more
luminosity to this topic.
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. Scheme of the Act
3. Limitation bars remedy
4. Limitation doesn’t bar defence
5. Starting point of limitation
6. Expiry of period of limitation when court is closed
7. Extension of period of limitation
8. Condonation of delay
9. Legal disability
10. Exclusion of time
11. Postponement of limitation
12. Conclusion
13. Bibliography
 INTRODUCTION
The law of limitation is procedural or adjective law. The function of adjective law is to
facilitate justice and further its ends. The rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to
the administration of justice. They must, therefore, be construed in such a manner as to render
enforcement of substantive rights effective.1

The word limitation itself says the meaning. The word limitation in its literal term means a
restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited. The law of limitation has been
prescribed as the time limit which is given for different suits to the aggrieved person within
which they can approach the court for redress or justice.

The basic concept of limitation is relating to fixing or prescribing of the time period for
barring legal actions. According to Section 2 (j) of the Limitation Act, 1963, ‘period of
limitation’ means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the
Schedule, and ‘prescribed period’ means the period of limitation computed in accordance
with the provisions of this act. The Law of Limitation signifies to prevent from the last date
for different legal actions which can take place against an aggrieved person and to advance
the suit and seek remedy or righteous before the court.2 A statute of limitation deprives an
aggrieved person to have recourse to legal remedy. Hence, wherever its language is vague,
unclear or ambiguous, that construction should be preferred which preserves such remedy to
one which bars or defeats it.3 Equitable considerations, however, are irrelevant and
immaterial in interpreting and applying the law of limitation.4

The object and utility of law of limitation has never been a matter of doubt or dispute. A law
of limitation is a statute of repose, peace and justice. It is a matter of repose because it
extinguishes State demands and quiets title. It seeks to obtain peace and security by raising a
presumption that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. It is intended to do
justice inasmuch as it takes into consideration ground reality that the right of parties should
not be in state of constant doubt, dispute or uncertainty. It is founded on public policy with

1
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425.
2
https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-limitation-india-limitation-act-1963/
3
C.K Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE, Eastern book publication (8 th edition), pg. 767.
4
Siraj ul haq khan v. Sunni Central Board of Wakf, AIR 1959 SC 198.
aim of securing peace, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent
oppression.5 Statutes on limitation are based on two well-known legal maxims:

(i) The interest of the State requires that there should be an end to litigation (interest
reipubublicae ut sit finis litium).
(ii) The law assists the vigilant and not one who sleeps over his rights (Vigilantibus
non dormeintibus jura subveniunt).6

There are three cogent grounds in support of the law of limitation:

(1) long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them;
(2) a defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim; and
(3) a person with good cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.7

Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to ensure
that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

The Limitation Act, 1963 has been enacted “to consolidate and amend” the law for the
limitation of suits and other proceedings. The Act is thus a complete Code and is exhaustive
in respect of all matters specifically and expressly dealt with by it. No court, hence, can travel
beyond the provisions of the Act.8

But in respect of matters not dealt with by it, the Act has no application. The provisions of the
Act cannot be extended by analogy or reference to proceedings to which they do not apply,
either expressly or by necessary implication.9 Thus, a proceeding which does not fall under
any of the articles in the First Schedule cannot be held to be barred by time on the analogy of
a matter which is governed by a particular article.

SCHEME OF LIMITATION ACT, 1963

The present Limitation Act of 1963 is enacted on the basis of suggestions and
recommendations of the Law Commission. According to the Law Commission, the law of
limitation should be simple, certain and rational. The period of limitation should neither be
too long nor too short. It should be in consonance with the outlook and notions of laymen.
5
Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81.
6
Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1704.
7
Halbury’s law of England (4th edition) vol. 28.
8
ASK Krishnappa Chettiar v. SVV Somiah, AIR 1964 SC 227.
9
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/limitaion-act-object-whetehr-exhaustive.html
The substantive part of the Act contains sections (Ss. 1-32.). The schedule prescribes period
of limitation. The first division relates to suits of various types mentioned therein and
prescribes period of limitation for filing such suits, providing time from which such period
begins to run. The second division applies to appeals, whereas the third division deals with
applications of different types.10

The sections in the body of the Act govern and control articles in the schedule. All the
provisions of the Act should be read together harmoniously but in case of conflict or
inconsistency, the former will prevail over the latter.11

LIMITATION BARS REMEDY

The law of limitation, being a procedural law, merely bars the remedy. It does not destroy
primary or substantive right accrued in favour of a party. The judicial remedy available for
enforcement of such right is barred, but the substantive right survives and continues to be
available if there are other ways or means for enforcing it.12

Hence, if a debtor pays to his creditor time-barred debt, he cannot claim it back on the ground
that the creditor could not have held a suit against the debtor for recovery of the said amount.
Similarly, if a debtor owes several debts to a creditor, some of which are barred by limitation,
and makes payment of some amount without any specification and the creditor adjusts the
amount towards time-barred debt, the debtor cannot object nor he can claim such amount. A
creditor may obtain payment of time-barred debt by a permissible mode, e.g. a right of lien,
valid contract, etc.

LIMITATION DOES NOT BAR DEFENCE

The law of limitation bars an action and not a defence. It is, therefore, open to the defendant
in a suit held by the plaintiff to set up a plea in defence Which he may not be able to enforce
by filing a “suit.” Thus, in a voidable transaction, the defendant may raise any plea for
enforcing the transaction, though he could not have filed suit for its enforcement on such
plea. Similarly, in a suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud, the fraudulent character of
decree can be set up as a defence by the defendant, even after expiry of the period of

10
Bhawanipore Banking Corpn. Ltd. V. Gauri Shankar Sharma, AIR 1950 SC 6.
11
State of UP v. Babu Ram upadhyaya , AIR 1961 SC 227.
12
Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. EESI Corp. (1971) 2 SC 860.
limitation for filing a suit. Again, wrong description of property in the sale-deed doesnot
debar the defendant purchaser from setting up a defence and from protecting his possession
from showing that the property sold to him was the real property sold, but it was wrongly
described in the sale deed. Again, an attorney can avail right of lien for his fees, although a
suit might have been time barred.

But if the expiry of limitation destroys the right itself, it can neither be enforced by a suit nor
can be set up as a defence.13 Thus, the defendant cannot raise a plea in defence of some
inchoate or imperfect right, established of which depends upon a suit within a particular
period and the said period ha expired within which no suit is filed.

STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION

Limitation starts running from the date right to sue accrues in favour of a party. “Right to
sue” means right to seek relief, i.e. right to approach a court of law. Thus, there can be no
“right to sue” until there is an accrual of right asserted in the suit, appeal or other
proceedings.41 In such cases, second column of each article fixes the period of limitation,
while the third column specifies time from which the period of limitation starts running.14

EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHEN

COURT IS CLOSED
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that where the prescribed period for any suit,
appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application
may be filed on the day the court reopens.15 Section 4 is based on two well-known
principles16-

(i) The law does not compel a person to do that which he cannot possibly perform
(lex non cogit ad impossibilia).
(ii) An act of court shall prejudice no one (actus curiae neminem gravabit).

13
See Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
14
Ibid.
15
Section 10, General Clauses Act, 1897 also lays down this principle.
16
Amar Chand Inani v. UOI (1973) 1 SCC 115.
EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION
Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of time in certain cases. It states that
any appeal or application may be admitted even after the limitation is over, if the appellant or
applicant satisfies the court that he had “sufficient cause” for not filing such appeal or
application within the period of limitation. In such cases, delay in filing an appeal or
application can be condoned by a court and the matter can be heard and decided on merits.

CONDONATION OF DELAY
The Law of Limitation is an adjective law i.e. aggregate of procedure or procedure Law, rule
of the procedure being rule of law does not make it bias means it doesn’t take the favour of
one party. Condonation of Delay17 is the defined as the time extended for the prescribed
period in a certain suits by the Courts only when there is the sufficient cause provided by the
appellant for not “referring appeal” and “application made” within the meaning of the above
Section, the delay will be considered condoned, exception in case of execution applications.18
Section 5 is applicable on criminal cases because it is not prohibiting any other Section.

Reason why Condonation of Delay includes only “Appeal‟ and “Application‟ and not
“Suit”.

The Section does not include the “suit”, but includes appeal and application, the major
rationale behind this is that if Section 5 includes “Suit” then Section 3 of the Act gives the
provision for the Bar of Limitation, Thus, if there is any institution of suit, appeal is preferred
and the application is made after the prescribed period the Suit shall be dismissed, but the
limitation act is not a defence so that if there is any extension in the particular suit which is
given by the Sections 4 to 24 which deals with “prescribed period” these Section will be
Considered.

The reason behind this is that: For “Suit” extension given is of 3 to 12 years and for appeal
and application it if for 6 months, some concession is allowed to the appeal and application
.Hence, if the Suit is included in Section 5 of the Act, then Section 3 of the act will be
irrelevant, the particular Section will be dilute and will have no effect. Hence, Section 5 is an

17
The Limitation Act, 1963.
18
Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
exception to the rule laid down in Section 3 of the Act. It also does not include execution
proceedings.

For taking the benefit of the Section 5 in order to make application the applicant must have
“sufficient cause” for the delay, and it is upon the discretion of the Court in order to grant
application to the applicant, when the Court thinks that applicant has the sufficient cause in
order to not preferring the appeal and application, the court may condone delay.

The Court while dealing with the application may keep two conflicts in mind.

1. The court will decide the cases on merits rather than going on the technical ground of
delay without adjudicating on the issues.
2. The court must also take into the consideration the non-filing of the appeal or
application by the applicant means, the applicant valuable right has been created and
the right shall not be defeated4 by the Court.19

General principles for the Condonation of Delay:

I. The party must satisfy the Court, in order to delay for not preferring the appeal or
application within the prescribed time, if the party doesn’t have the sufficient
cause, later the period may not be relevant.20
II. The entire period between the last date of the limitation to the actual date of the
filing of the application should cover the explanation has to cover the entire period
of delay. The event should occur before the expiration of the limitation period, if it
has occurred after the expiration of period the sufficient cause will not be
considered. Hence, no appeal and application can be preferred in such cases.21
III. The proof of the sufficient cause by the applicant does not bound court to
preferred appeal and application; it is the discretion of the Court to prefer the
appeal and application.22
IV. The discretion of the Court must not be mala fide or arbitrary, it is Judicial.

“Sufficient Cause”

19
Ram Nath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195.
20
State of Manipur Vs. All Manipur R.P.V.S Teachers Assen. AIR 1976.
21
Rewa Coldfield case.
22
Manohar Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhanrao Patil (1996) 1 SCC 169.
The above expression has not been defined in the Act. It has a wider meaning which is very
comprehensive and broad in nature. The cause must be beyond the control of the invoking. In
order to advance the cause of justice it is construed liberally.23

The two rules were laid down with regards to the expression “sufficient cause” by the
Court.24

a) The cause must be beyond the control of the invoking.

b) The parties must not be lacking bona fide, not be shown to be negligent or inactive.

A liberal approach to the term “sufficient cause” was given by the Court.25

a) Court main aim is to provide justice, refusing to condone the delay can result in
meritorious matter.
b) Every day Delay , there is no need to give schedule of each and every minute.
c) Justice or Technicality, it better to provide justice rather than going with technicality.
d) No presumption from the side of the Court, that the party is voluntarily late.

Instances where delay condoned:

i. Applicant suffering from fever.

ii. Applicant suffering from mental shock because of son‟s death and also because of
his wife’s illness.
iii. Appellants being old people and minor girl unable to understand the procedure of
the Suit.
iv. Illiterate father delay in filing the appeal.

Instances where delay not condoned:

i) Delay condoned because of collecting the money from the people involved in the
case.
ii) If the appellant had to collect a certified copy for 3 months after it is ready to his
knowledge he had to arrange money to pay the cost of the copy is no ground of
condonation.26

23
State of W.P Vs. Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366.
24
Krishna Vs. Chattappan (1889) ILR 13M 269.
25
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Musammath Khatiji AIR 1987 SC 1353.
26
Gurumukh Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1970) Punj. 282.
LEGAL DISABILITY
Section 3 of the Limitation Act lays down general rule of limitation and declares that every
suit, appeal or application filed after the period of limitation shall be dismissed.27 This
general rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions. Special circumstances enumerated in
Sections 4-24 enable proceedings to be instituted after the lapse of period of limitation.
Sections 6 and 7 provide that where a person or one of several persons is under a legal
disability (minor, insane or idiot), he may file a suit or an application within the same period
after the disability (minority, insanity idiocy) has ceased.

Such disability must exist at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned.
But once the time has begun to run, subsequent disability will not stop it (Sec. 9).

TYPES OF LEGAL DISABILITY

There are three types of legal disabilities that have been described in section 6 (1) of the
Limitation act, 1963. These include-

1. Minor
2. Insane
3. Idiot

The first of these criterions for legal disability, “minor” has to do with a person’s age. Under
Section 3 (1) of The Indian Majority Act of 187528, a person becomes a major when he/she
completes eighteen years. This computation of age is to be done after taking into account the
following two provisos discussed in section 3(2) :

 The day on which the said individual is born is to be included as a whole day.
 He/she is thus said to have become a major as and when the eighteenth anniversary of
that day commences.

The Majority Act of 1875 can be termed as a “secular” law as it applies to all individuals
professing any religion in India .If a particular personal law states otherwise, only then can
the age of majority be considered as something else other than 18 years.29 The Majority Act

27
See, “ Plea of limitation: duty of court” at pg. 771.
28
See, section 3(1) 0f Indian Majority Act, 1875.
29
See,Infochangeindia.org, Who is a child, Asha Bajpai, 2007, available at
http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/childrights-in-india/who-is-a-child.html
though takes into account certain situations where in a concerned court or a court of wards
took superintendence over the life and property of a minor and thus for his/her welfare
appointed any guardian before such a person attained the age of 18, in such cases it is to be
observed that the age of minority then extends till the age of 21 for the person in question. A
child in the womb is also termed as a minor.30

The second criterion for applying the bar of legal disability is that of insanity. This concept is
explained in great detail in the case of S.K.Yadav V State of Maharashtra31 that was contested
in the Supreme Court. In this case the court dealt with the concept of insanity in our legal
system at great length. It stated that courts only recognized legal insanity and not medical
insanity and that there were substantial differences between the two. Even if insanity has
been previously proved medically or in a lower court of law, it has to be proved in the higher
court. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that no such specific tests lie to prove legal insanity.
behaviors, antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event, are to be taken into account
while considering if a said person is to be termed insane or not.

In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh32, it was said that there were four
sub-types of non-compos mentis i.e., (1) an idiot; (2) one made non compos by illness (3) a
lunatic or a mad man and (4) one who is drunk. Idiocy included the following characteristics
which included-(a) non-sane memory from birth by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid
intervals (b) idiots are unable to count twenty (c) tell the days of the week, (d) who do not
know their fathers or mothers, or the like. A lunatic suffers from bouts of such attacks in
between what is termed as periods of sanity i.e there are times when he can control his senses
but there are occasions where he/she functions in an erratic manner, example-epilepsy.
Madness is seen as permanent. Lunacy and madness are termed “acquired insanity” while
idiocy is considered as “natural insanity” i.e while a person can turn lunatic at any time in his
lifetime, a person is an idiot since his/her birth.

RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN LIMITATION ACT

A major part of rules pertaining to legal disability are enshrined in its parent act, which is that
of Limitation Act, especially sections 6,7 and 9 that describe with a great deal of detail the
different aspects of technical acumen. These sections ably support one another.

30
Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014- The Limitation Act, 1963, page 7.
31
S.K.Yadav V State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.509
of 2008).
32
See Hari Singh Gond V State of Madhya Pradesh, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2007.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act is a very important section. It deals with the different time
periods that are to be allowed to parties to file cases, beyond which the concept of limitation
debars parties from filing any suits. However, it is to be noticed that this section also provides
for some exceptions- in cases of extraordinary situations that lie in sections 4-24 of the
Limitation Act.33

Minority, idiocacy and insanity are the different grounds under sections 6 and 7 of the act that
allow parties to file suits after the time period when the disability is over. The disability has
to compulsorily exist at the time from which period of limitation is supposed to begin. After
such a time period has already begun, no subsequent disability can lead to resetting of this
clock as per section 9 of the Limitation Act.

A per section 6 (2), if a person is suffering from multiple disabilities i.e, at least two or if
such a person has got rid of one form of disability and is suffering from a new one, then in
such situations he/she can only file a suit after these multiple disabilities or the newer
disability has ceased to exist. Section 8 makes it amply clear that the concept or pre-emptive
action does not exist in this case and that the time period for limitation is three years after the
death of such a person or the ceasing of his disability.34

RULES PERTAINING TO LEGAL DISABILITY IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,

1908

There are some provisions pertaining to legal disability in Civil Procedure Code of 1908.
Some of these sections are-

1. Under order VIII rule 5(1) of the CPC, it has been said that if a specific charge has not
been denied specifically or not admitted by a defendant then it would be admitted specifically
except against those persons suffering from legal disabilities.

2. Section 6 (3) of limitation act of 1963 empowers legal representatives to file a suit after the
death of a person suffering from legal disability15, this provision is supported by order 22
rule 3 (1) of the CPC that makes legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff party to a suit.

33
Ibid, 2.
34
Section 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Under rule 4A of order 22, the court can appoint an administer General or an officer of the
court as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person, in case there are no legal
representatives left.

4. Under rule 1 (1) of order 23 of the CPC, a suit where the plaintiff is a minor or any other
person to whom rules 1 to 14 of order 31 extend, then a suit can be withdrawn only after the
court has been satisfied as explained in rule 3 of order 23 on the grounds of formal defect or
existence of grounds to file a fresh suit. In the case of Joannala Sura Reddy v. Tiyyagura
Srinivasa35, it was said that no fresh suit can be filed if the previous suit has not been
withdrawn after taking the court’s consent under rules1and 3 of order 23.

5. Under rule 12 of Order 32 of CPC, which deals with suits filed by minors on them
attaining majority, it was said in the case of Vidya Wati (deceased) through her L.Rs. V. Hans
Raj (deceased) through his L.Rs.,36 that under the specific provision mentioned above no
dismissal of the suit is needed in case minor has decided not to pursue the matter after
attaining majority.

EXCLUSION OF TIME
Sections 12-15 of the Limitation Act provide for exclusion of time in computing the period of
limitation prescribed by law. Those provisions, inter alia, exclude the following periods:

(1) The day on which the period of limitation is to be reckoned.37

(2) The day on which the judgment/order/award is pronounced.38
(3) The time spent in obtaining copy of decree/order/award/sentence.39
(4) The time spent in prosecuting an application to sue as an indigent person.40
(5) The time spent in proceedings taken bona hde (in good faith) in court having no
jurisdiction.41
(6) The time during which stay or injunction operated.42
(7) The time spent in giving notice or for obtaining consent or sanction required by law.43

35
AIR 2004 AP 222,Universal’s Bare Act with Short Notes, 2014-The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, page 16.
36
AIR 1993 Del 1719.
37
Section 12(1) of the Limitation act,1963.
38
Section 12(2) of the Limitation act, 1963.
39
Section 12(3), (4) of the Limitation act,1963.
40
Section 13 of the Limitation act,1963.
41
Section 14 of the Limitation act,1963.
42
Section 15(1) of the Limitation act,1963.
 (8) The time during which there was receiver or liquidator.44
(9) The time during which proceedings to set aside sale were pending (in a suit for
possession).45

(10)The time during which the defendant had been out of India.46

POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION
Sections 16-23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provide for postponement of limitation. For
application of law of limitation, there must be a completed cause of action. In other words,
there must be a person who can sue, a person who can be sued, and a cause of action on
which a suit, appeal or application can be filed. Moreover, such person should be in a
position to institute such proceeding without any hindrance, obstruction or impediment. In the
following cases, there is postponement of limitation, i.e. the period of limitation will not start
running:

(i) The period of limitation will not start running till there is a person who can sue or
who can be sued.47
(ii) In case of fraud or mistake, the period of limitation will not start running till such
fraud or mistake is discovered.48
(iii) In case of right or liability, a fresh period of limitation will start running from the
date of acknowledgment in writing of such right or liability by the party.49
(iv) In case of debt, payment will provide fresh period of limitation from the time of
such payment.50
(v) Where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is added or
substituted, the suit shall be deemed to be instituted against him when he was
made a party.51
But if the court is satisfied that such omission was due to bona fide mistake, the
suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date.52

43
Section 15(2) of the Limitation act,1963.
44
Section 15(3) of the Limitation act,1963.
45
Section 15(4) of the Limitation act,1963.
46
Section 15(5) of the Limitation act,1963.
47
Section 16(1) of the Limitation act,1963.
48
Section 17 of the Limitation act,1963.
49
Section 18 of the Limitation act,1963.
50
Section 19,20 of the Limitation act,1963.
51
Section 21 of the Limitation act,1963.
 (vi) In case of continuing breach of contract or tort, fresh period of limitation begins
to run every moment till breach or tort continues.53
(vii) In a suit for compensation for an act not actionable without special damage, the
period of limitation will be computed from the time the injury result.54

52
Proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation act,1963.
53
Section 22 of the Limitation act,1963.
54
Section 23 of the Limitation act,1963.
 CONCLUSION
Section 27 of the Limitation Act speaks of extinguishment of right to property. As already
discussed, the general principle of law is that limitation bars remedy and does not destroy the
right. The right remains subsisting though without remedy.55 Section 27 is an exception to
this rule and enacts that the bar of remedy will also extinguish and destroy the right itself.
Where a person does not file a suit for possession, his right to such property stands
extinguished.56

The Law of Limitation is an adjective Law. It is lex fori. Thus, it can be said that the rules of
the Law of Limitation are generally prima facie with the rules of procedure and which has not
created any rights in favour of any particular person nor does they define or create any cause
of action. It has been simply prescribed that the remedy can be exercised only for a limited
fixed period of time and subsequently.

The two effective implementation which helps in for a quick disposal of a cases or matters
and which are also effective for litigation are Limitation and compensation of delay, which
plays a vital role before the court. The Law of Limitation helps to keep a check while pulling
of cases where it prescribes the period of time within which a suit is to be filled and also it is
the time which are available within which an aggrieved person can get the remedy
conveniently and in an easy manner. Whereas the Law of Compensation of delay helps to
keep the principle of natural justice alive and it also helps to state the facts that when
different people might have different problem then the same kind of sentence or a same
singular rule may not apply to all of them in a same manner. Thus, it is very much essential to
hear the matter first from them and then decide accordingly whether they are fit in the criteria
of the judgment or whether they should be given another chance. So, it can be said that Law
of Limitation is very much important for the country like India and it also plays a major role
in a court of law.

55
Ibid.
56
Dindayal v. Rajaram, (1970) 1 SCC 789.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEBSITES REFFERED

(1) http://indiankanoon.org
(2) http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/childrights-in-india/who-is-a-child.html
(3) http://indiacode.nic.in
(4) https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-limitation-india-limitation-act-1963/
(5) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/limitaion-act-object-whetehr-exhaustive.html

BARE ACTS REFERRED

(1) THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 (Universal Publication 2018).

(2) THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (Universal Publication 2018).
(3) THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT,1897.

BOOKS REFERRED

(1) C.K Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE, Eastern book publication (8th edition).