Topic
The Limitation Act in Indian law prescribes time limits for filing suits, appeals, and applications in courts, with specific rules for computing periods and condoning delays.
The Orissa HC upheld cancellation of a 2001 sale deed where the plot number was fraudulently altered post-registration, ruling Article 59 limitation runs from fraud discovery in 2020 - not execution - safeguarding owners against time-barred challenges to forged documents.
Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Rent Control Tribunal's refusal to condone delay in filing appeal, holding apprehension of arrest does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act when party had ample opportunity to participate.
The Bombay HC ruled that permissive use by a relative cannot mature into adverse possession regardless of duration, placing the burden of proof squarely on the claimant. The court also held that an encroachment suit survives technical defects in property description and that the limitation period does not commence against permissive possession.
A partition suit is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff was unaware of his exclusion from joint family property, the Bombay HC held, stressing that knowledge of exclusion is essential for a limitation defence.
The Calcutta High Court held that COVID-19 limitation relaxations cannot revive suits time-barred pre-pandemic, dismissing an appeal delayed by 2179 days and ruling that unsubstantiated age/ill-health claims lack sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act.
A partition suit is not maintainable if plaintiffs lack actual or constructive possession and do not seek possession relief, the Delhi High Court ruled, placing the burden on challengers of registered documents to prove invalidity.
The court held that limitation under Article 58 for challenging registered settlement deeds begins from the registration date, as Section 3 TPA deems constructive notice to all parties. A plaintiff residing with the executants cannot claim ignorance of deeds registered in 2004 and 2009 until filing suit in 2024. The ruling reinforces that registered documents impart immediate legal knowledge regardless of actual awareness.
Limitation for executing a 2008 arbitral award runs from 23 October 2015, when amended Section 36 made awards immediately enforceable, not the award date. Pre-amendment law required the Section 34 challenge period to expire first, blocking execution for seven years per National Aluminium. The ruling shields award holders from statutory gaps that delayed enforcement.
The NCLAT upheld Section 7 admission, holding that continuing failure to deliver possession generates a fresh cause of action daily under Section 22 Limitation Act. Pendency of High Court winding-up proceedings does not bar NCLT from admitting a corporate debtor. Homebuyers' claims thus survive limitation through continuing default, and IBC initiation isn't stalled by parallel liquidation petitions.
The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹8.4 lakh decree for a commission agent, holding that an internal account statement not filed with the plaint is inadmissible under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. The agent must independently prove actual supply of X-ray films to government departments to claim commission; a limitation plea raised for the first time in appeal was rejected.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Indian courts can entertain civil suits to recover fraud-derived funds held in Indian banks, rejecting a forum non conveniens plea under the CPC. It also clarified that the limitation period for such monetary claims is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, commencing from the date the fraud is discovered. This decision guides foreign governments and claimants seeking cross-border fraud restitution in India.
The Madras HC held that a claim for refund of a Rs 2 lakh advance under a 2004 sale agreement is barred once the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act lapses. Since Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act creates a charge only after sale completion, buyers must sue within that window or forfeit the advance.
The J&K High Court upheld the arbitral award, applying Section 14 Limitation Act to remove prior writ and LPA time from the three-year limitation period. It barred the appellants from challenging the arbitration they initiated and capped interest on the award at 6% per annum.
The Supreme Court set aside the Indore High Court’s dismissal of a co-ownership suit, restoring the lower courts’ decree. It held that Section 100 CPC permits appellate review only on substantial questions of law, revenue mutations do not extinguish title and limitation begins when the impediment is discovered, shaping future land co-ownership litigation.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's reversal of an adverse possession decree, ruling that a co-sharer's forcible ouster cannot satisfy the 'peaceful possession' requirement under the Limitation Act. The court also found the claimants' reliance on unproven wills and absence of documentary evidence fatal to their case.