Punjab Law Education

For LLB part 3 :: Minor Act
Object of limitation Act
Preamble of the Act prescribes its object. It provides the time period in which case can be brought in the Court of law. Negligence in institution of suit with period prescribed causes the suit time barred thus not maintainable in Court of law. Violation of one’s right gives rises to cause of action. One should not sleep over his right. No negligence on accrual of right or interest is permitted. Law aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Vigilance grants the relief. Enforcement of right upon its infringement is got made through courts. Right is extinguished when it is not litigated within time prescribed for it.
The object of the Act is not to create or define causes of action but simply to prescribe the period within which existing rights can be enforced in Court of law. The principle of the Act is not to enable suits to be brought within certain periods, but to forbid them being brought after certain period.
Laches: It means slackness or negligence and hence willful negligence in asserting one’s rights. The doctrine of laches is based on the principle “delay defeats equity”.
Negligence or unreasonable delay in asserting or enforcing a right is called laches. The equitable doctrine that the “delay defeats equities” or that “equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”. A Court of equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his rights and acquiesced for a great length of time. Nothing can call forth this Court into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence, when these are wanting the Court is passive and does nothing.
When an equitable right is analogous to a legal right, which is subject to a period of limitation in brining actions to enforce it, the Court of equity may by analogy apply the same provision to the equitable right.
Acquiescence: It means compliance, consent, submission, or permission. Assent to an infringement of rights, either expressed, or implied from conduct, by which the right to equitable relief is normally lost. Where plaintiff has implied consent by way of his conduct is called acquiescence. Party who could not object on the act of other is acquiescence.
Estoppel: The rule of evidence or doctrine of law which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement formerly made by him, or the existence of facts which he has by words or conduct led others to believe in. If a person by a representation induces another to change his position on the faith of it, he cannot afterwards deny the truth of his representation.
Estoppel by record: A person is not permitted to dispute the facts upon which a judgement against him is based.
Estoppel by deed: A person cannot dispute his own deed, he cannot deny the truth of recitals contained in it.
Estoppel in pais or equitable estoppel: Estoppel by conduct, e.g., a tenant, having accepted a lease, cannot dispute his lessor’s title.
Equitable estoppel: A person who stands by and keeps silence when he observes another person acting under a misapprehension or mistake, which by speaking he could have prevented by showing the true state of affairs, cannot be estopped from later alleging the true state of affairs. Thus an owner of goods who voluntarily allows another to treat them as his own, without protest, whereby a third person is induced to buy them bona-fide cannot recover them from that person. Similarly, if a stranger begins to build on land supposing it to be his own, and the real owner, observing his mistake, abstains from setting him right and leaves him to persevere in his error, equity will not afterwards allow the real owner to assert his title to the land. Estoppel provides a shield, not a sword it cannot create a cause of action.
Prescription: The vesting of a right by reason of lapse of time. Negative prescription is the divesting of a right by the same process.
At common law, a title by prescription was acquired by the enjoyment of a right from time immemorial, or time out of mind, from which an original grant was implied. Such user would be presumed from evidence of long actual user, but the presumption might be rebutted by proof that the enjoyment had in fact commenced within legal memory.
Dismissal of the time barred suit u/s 3: All the suits must come within the period prescribed for them under this or any other special law. It should be kept in mind that any special law excludes the provisions of general law. Even the defendant does not take plea of limitation, it shall not preclude the Court from raising the point of its own accord.
Institution of suit: Suit is deemed to be instituted when first it is presented to the officer concerned. Subsequent acceptance of the suit does not matter as far as the institution of suit within limitation period is concerned. Mere presentation of suit is sufficient to come under limitation period. Making good (realization, completion, perfection, actualization) of deficiency of Court fee also does not matter if it is made within the time which Court provides for such purpose. First presentation is valid and not the subsequent making good.
Expiry of limitation on the day when Court is closed u/s 4: Where last day of the limitation period falls on the day when the Court is closed, time shall be extended upto the date very next reopening of the Court. This Court should be the proper Court and not the Court, which has not jurisdiction.
Extension of period in certain cases u/s 5: Extension in the limitation period can be prayed only in the case of appeals or applications for revisions or a review of judgements or for leave to appeal or any other applications to which this section allows. This exception is not applicable in the case where suit is to be brought in first instance.
This exception should be supported with proper justification of the delay. Illness, imprisonment of applicant, wrong proceeding taken by him in good faith, proceeding taken in wrong Court through bona-fide mistake are good instances of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of this section.
If the prescribed period of limitation has expired, the person desiring the Court to condone the delay u/s 5, must explain every day of the delay. The extension of time u/s 5 is a matter of concession or indulgence to the applicant and cannot be claimed by him as a matter of absolute right.