Limitation Periods in India: Complete Guide to Civil Suits, Appeals, Revisions, Execution and Criminal Proceedings
The law of limitation determines the time within which a legal remedy must ordinarily be pursued. In India, the principal statute is the Limitation Act, 1963, read with procedural statutes such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), special enactments, and the rules of the court concerned. Limitation Act, 1963 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Limitation is not merely a procedural technicality. A court must dismiss a suit, appeal or application filed after the prescribed period, even where the defendant has not raised limitation as a defence, subject to statutory exclusions, extensions and condonation provisions. Section 3, Limitation Act
What Is the Law of Limitation?
Limitation law fixes the outer time limit for commencing or continuing legal proceedings. Its central purpose is to bring finality to disputes, prevent litigation over stale claims, protect parties from defending matters where evidence may have disappeared, and encourage diligence by litigants.
The Limitation Act does not create a substantive right in favour of a claimant. Instead, it regulates the remedy available through a court. In ordinary cases, expiry of limitation bars the judicial remedy without necessarily extinguishing the underlying obligation. An important exception concerns claims for possession of immovable property: Section 27 provides that the claimant’s right itself may be extinguished once the period prescribed for instituting a possession suit expires. Section 27, Limitation Act
The distinction is significant:
| Situation | Legal consequence |
|---|---|
| Most money, contract or declaration claims become time-barred | The remedy before court is barred, though the underlying obligation may continue in limited contexts |
| Possession claim based on title becomes time-barred | The claimant’s right to the property may be extinguished under Section 27 |
| Appeal or application is filed late | It may be dismissed unless the law permits and the court grants condonation of delay |
| Special statute prescribes its own period | The special statute ordinarily prevails over the general Schedule to the Limitation Act |
A time-barred debt may, for example, still constitute valid consideration for a written and signed promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. That does not mean the original time-barred suit can be revived merely by asserting a moral obligation; the statutory requirements for a fresh promise must be satisfied. Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Most Important Rule: Courts Must Dismiss Time-Barred Matters
Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act states that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period “shall be dismissed,” although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Section 3, Limitation Act
This produces several practical consequences:
- A defendant does not waive limitation merely by failing to plead it at the earliest stage.
- A court may examine limitation on the pleadings and admitted documents even if the opposite party does not press the point.
- A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by law, including limitation. Order VII Rule 11, CPC
- A litigant should plead facts supporting the calculation of limitation, particularly where the claim depends on fraud, mistake, acknowledgment, part-payment, a continuing cause of action or exclusion of time spent before another forum.
- Filing a weak condonation application after an appeal becomes time-barred can be fatal, even when the merits of the case appear strong.
The law does not permit a court to ignore a statutory deadline merely because one side appears to have an equitable grievance. Equity operates within the framework of limitation provisions; it does not replace them.
How to Calculate Limitation Correctly
A limitation calculation has four stages:
- Identify the legal remedy and forum.
- Find the governing statutory provision or article in the Schedule.
- Identify the date from which time begins to run.
- Apply provisions that exclude time, create a fresh period or permit delay condonation.
The calculation should be recorded in a written limitation note before filing. It should identify the proposed filing date, last permissible date, relevant documents, copy-application dates, copy-ready dates, court holidays and any delay requiring an application.
Step One: Identify the Correct Proceeding
The same dispute can produce different remedies with different limitation periods. For example, a dispute arising from a sale agreement may involve:
| Proposed remedy | Typical limitation question |
|---|---|
| Suit for specific performance | Usually Article 54: three years from the date fixed for performance or refusal |
| Suit for refund of advance money | May fall under a different article depending on pleadings and contractual terms |
| Suit for damages for breach | Usually Article 55: three years from breach |
| Suit for declaration that agreement is void | Usually Article 58: three years when the right to sue first accrues |
| Suit seeking cancellation of registered deed | Usually Article 59: three years from knowledge of relevant facts |
| First appeal from decree | Article 116 or a special statute |
| Second appeal to High Court | Article 116, subject to CPC requirements |
| Execution of money decree | Article 136: ordinarily 12 years |
| Application for review | Article 124: ordinarily 30 days |
| Civil revision before High Court | Article 131: 90 days |
Selecting the wrong remedy can result in applying the wrong limitation article. Labels used in the prayer clause are not decisive; courts examine the real nature of the relief and the factual foundation of the claim.
Step Two: Find the Governing Limitation Provision
The Schedule to the Limitation Act is divided into three principal divisions:
| Division | Subject |
|---|---|
| First Division | Suits |
| Second Division | Appeals |
| Third Division | Applications |
The Schedule contains 137 articles. Each article specifies:
- The description of the suit, appeal or application.
- The prescribed limitation period.
- The point from which time begins to run.
The starting point is never simply “the date of dispute.” It is the event specifically identified in the relevant article.
For instance, Article 54 applies to specific performance of a contract and uses two alternative starting points:
- The date fixed for performance.
- If no date is fixed, the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.
Article 58, dealing with a declaratory suit, generally runs from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Article 59, dealing with cancellation or setting aside of an instrument or decree, runs from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to relief first become known. Articles 54, 58 and 59, Limitation Act
A legal notice, reply, representation or negotiation does not automatically stop time. Limitation continues unless a statutory provision applies.
Step Three: Identify When Time Begins to Run
Section 9 of the Limitation Act contains a fundamental principle: once time has begun to run, a subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application does not stop it. Section 9, Limitation Act
This rule prevents limitation from being indefinitely suspended by later events. A claimant’s illness, financial difficulty, travel, business disruption or later incapacity does not ordinarily halt a limitation period that has already started.
The date from which limitation begins varies according to the remedy:
| Event | Example of likely starting point |
|---|---|
| Contractual breach | Date of breach or date fixed for performance |
| Loan repayment | Date due under contract, demand promissory note terms, or relevant article |
| Sale of goods | Delivery date, credit expiry or refusal to pay, depending on the article |
| Decree execution | Date the decree becomes enforceable |
| Appeal | Date of decree, order or judgment, subject to exclusion for certified copies |
| Fraud or mistake | Date claimant discovers, or could with reasonable diligence discover, relevant facts |
| Continuing wrong | Each day of continuance may create a fresh period for the continuing wrong |
| Continuing breach of contract | Fresh limitation may arise for each continuing breach |
The wording of the relevant article must control the analysis. It is unsafe to use a generic “cause of action date” without checking the statutory language.
General Rules for Computing Time
Sections 12 to 15 of the Limitation Act are frequently decisive.
Exclusion of the First Day
Section 12(1) excludes the day from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned. If an appeal must be filed within 30 days from an order dated 1 January, the date of 1 January is excluded and counting ordinarily begins on 2 January. Section 12, Limitation Act
Time Needed for Certified Copies
In an appeal, application for leave to appeal, revision, review of judgment or other specified proceedings, Section 12 permits exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed. Section 12, Limitation Act
The phrase “time requisite” does not automatically mean every day between judgment and filing. A party should preserve:
- The copy application.
- Copying fee receipt.
- Date on which defects were notified, if any.
- Date on which the copy became ready.
- Date on which the copy was delivered.
- The certified copy itself.
Electronic availability of orders, local e-filing systems and particular court rules can affect filing practice. Counsel should verify whether a certified copy is mandatory, exempted or can be filed later under applicable rules.
Court Closed on the Last Day
Section 4 permits filing on the day the court reopens where the prescribed period expires on a day when the court is closed. Section 4, Limitation Act
This protection applies only where the final day falls during a closure. It does not provide a general extension because a lawyer’s office, registry counter or party was unavailable.
Exclusion During Legal Proceedings
Section 15 excludes time in specified circumstances, including the period during which institution of a suit or execution of a decree has been stayed by injunction or order. It also contains provisions concerning mandatory notice requirements and proceedings against certain defendants. Section 15, Limitation Act
Where a statutory notice is mandatory before filing a suit, such as notice under Section 80 CPC against the Government or a public officer in respect of acts done in official capacity, the period of notice may be excluded where Section 15 applies. Section 80 CPC ordinarily requires two months’ prior notice, subject to the urgent-relief procedure under Section 80(2). Section 80, CPC
Limitation for Common Civil Suits
The following table is a practical reference. The correct article still depends on the pleaded facts, transaction documents and relief claimed.
| Civil remedy | Limitation period | Starting point | Article |
|---|---|---|---|
| Money lent under agreement payable on demand | 3 years | Date loan is made | Article 21 |
| Money lent payable after demand | 3 years | Date demand is made | Article 22 |
| Money deposited payable on demand | 3 years | Date demand is made | Article 22 |
| Price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed credit period | 3 years | Date of delivery | Article 14 |
| Price of goods sold on fixed credit | 3 years | Expiry of credit period | Article 15 |
| Compensation for breach of contract | 3 years | Date breach occurs or, if successive breaches, when breach sued upon occurs | Article 55 |
| Specific performance of contract | 3 years | Date fixed for performance; otherwise refusal known to plaintiff | Article 54 |
| Rescission of contract | 3 years | Date facts entitling rescission become known | Article 59 |
| Cancellation or setting aside of instrument/decree | 3 years | Date relevant facts become known | Article 59 |
| Declaratory suit | 3 years | When right to sue first accrues | Article 58 |
| Possession based on previous possession, not title | 12 years | Date of dispossession | Article 64 |
| Possession of immovable property based on title | 12 years | When defendant’s possession becomes adverse | Article 65 |
| Redemption or recovery of possession of mortgaged immovable property | 30 years | When right to redeem or recover possession accrues | Article 61 |
| Foreclosure by mortgagee | 30 years | When money secured becomes due | Article 63 |
| Compensation for tortious act | Often 1 to 3 years | Depends on the specific wrong and article | Relevant Schedule article |
Limitation for Recovery of Money
Money-recovery cases are among the most common limitation disputes. The recurring but inaccurate assumption is that every recovery claim has a simple three-year period from the date of invoice. The starting point depends on the character of the transaction.
A claim may arise from:
- A loan agreement.
- A promissory note.
- Goods sold and delivered.
- Professional services rendered.
- Work completed under a contract.
- A running and mutual account.
- A dishonoured cheque.
- An indemnity.
- A guarantee.
- Unpaid salary, commission or rent.
- An account stated between parties.
For goods sold without a fixed credit period, Article 14 usually runs from delivery. For goods sold on a fixed credit period, Article 15 runs from expiry of that credit period. A claimant should retain purchase orders, delivery challans, e-way bills, invoices, ledger statements, payment correspondence and acknowledgments. Articles 14 and 15, Limitation Act
Running Accounts and Mutual Accounts
The law draws a distinction between an ordinary running account and a “mutual, open and current account” with reciprocal demands between parties. Article 1 provides a three-year period for the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, calculated from the close of the year in which the last admitted or proved item is entered. Article 1, Limitation Act
Not every supplier-customer ledger is a mutual account. A one-sided account, where one party supplies goods and the other makes payments, may not satisfy the requirement of reciprocal demands. Pleadings should therefore avoid mechanically invoking Article 1 without analysing the commercial relationship.
Acknowledgment of Liability
Section 18 can create a fresh limitation period if, before expiry of the existing limitation period, the defendant makes a written acknowledgment of liability signed by the defendant or an authorised agent. Section 18, Limitation Act
A valid acknowledgment need not contain an express promise to pay. It must, however, indicate an existing jural relationship and admission of liability. It must be in writing, signed, and made before the original limitation period expires.
Typical documents that may raise an acknowledgment issue include:
- Signed balance confirmations.
- Signed ledger statements.
- Letters admitting an outstanding amount.
- E-mails sent by an authorised person, depending on proof and applicable electronic-signature principles.
- Settlement proposals that acknowledge debt.
- Replies to legal notices.
- Written requests for time to pay.
An acknowledgment made after expiry of limitation does not revive the original cause of action under Section 18. It may nevertheless have consequences if it independently satisfies the statutory requirements of a fresh written promise to pay a time-barred debt.
Part-Payment
Under Section 19, a fresh period may begin where payment on account of debt or interest is made before expiry of the prescribed period by the person liable or an authorised agent. The statutory requirements and proof of payment must be carefully examined. Section 19, Limitation Act
A creditor should not presume that an unverified ledger entry or unilateral accounting notation proves part-payment. Documentary evidence connecting the payment to the relevant debt is essential.
Limitation for Specific Performance of Contract
Article 54 prescribes three years for a suit seeking specific performance of a contract. The starting point depends on whether the contract fixes a date for performance. Article 54, Limitation Act
| Contract position | Limitation begins |
|---|---|
| Agreement fixes a performance date | On that fixed date |
| Agreement contains no fixed performance date | When plaintiff has notice that performance is refused |
| Agreement requires a condition precedent | Depends on the contractual terms and when enforceable refusal occurs |
| Several stages of performance exist | Requires close reading of the agreement and relief sought |
A purchaser should not delay simply because negotiations continue or because the seller has not issued a formal cancellation notice. Clear refusal can arise from conduct, such as sale to a third party, denial of the agreement, refusal to accept consideration, or an unequivocal communication declining performance.
A plaint for specific performance should plead:
- The agreement date and material terms.
- The date fixed for performance, if any.
- Payment and readiness-and-willingness facts.
- Demands made by the plaintiff.
- The date and manner of refusal.
- Why the suit is within Article 54.
- Any acknowledgment, extension or subsequent written arrangement relied upon.
The limitation issue is separate from the merits requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that a plaintiff must establish readiness and willingness to perform essential contractual terms. Specific Relief Act, 1963
Limitation for Declaration, Cancellation and Fraud-Based Claims
Article 58 provides three years for a suit to obtain “any other declaration,” beginning when the right to sue first accrues. Article 59 provides three years to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for rescission of a contract, beginning when the facts entitling the plaintiff to such relief first become known. Articles 58 and 59, Limitation Act
The difference matters. A plaintiff challenging a registered sale deed, gift deed, release deed, mortgage, family settlement or decree must identify whether the substantive relief is truly declaratory or is in substance cancellation or setting aside of an instrument.
Fraud and mistake are governed by Section 17. Where the suit or application is based on fraud or mistake, or where a necessary document has been fraudulently concealed, limitation does not begin until the claimant discovers the fraud or mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. Section 17, Limitation Act
A vague assertion of fraud is insufficient. The claimant should plead:
- The precise fraudulent act.
- Who committed it.
- When and how it was discovered.
- Why it could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
- The documents or circumstances evidencing concealment.
- The exact date from which limitation is asserted to run.
Registration of a document, revenue entries, possession, public records, prior litigation and earlier correspondence may affect the court’s assessment of when knowledge could reasonably be imputed.
Adverse Possession and Property Claims
Article 65 prescribes 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Time begins when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Article 65, Limitation Act
For adverse possession, mere long possession is not enough. The possession claimed as adverse must generally be open, continuous, exclusive, hostile to the true owner’s title and maintained for the statutory period. The person asserting adverse possession bears a substantial burden to establish the factual basis.
Article 64 concerns a suit for possession based on prior possession and not on title; the limitation period is 12 years from dispossession. Article 65 concerns title-based possession claims and runs from adverse possession. Articles 64 and 65, Limitation Act
For mortgage matters, the Schedule provides longer periods in several situations. A mortgagor’s suit to redeem or recover possession of mortgaged immovable property generally carries a 30-year limitation period under Article 61(a). Article 61, Limitation Act
Limitation for Civil Appeals
Civil appeals are governed by the CPC, the Limitation Act, special statutes and court rules. The right of appeal is statutory; it exists only where a statute provides it.
The main Schedule provisions are:
| Appeal | Limitation period | Article |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal to High Court from decree or order | 90 days | Article 116(a) |
| Appeal to any court other than High Court from decree or order | 30 days | Article 116(b) |
| Appeal from decree or order of High Court to same High Court | 30 days | Article 117 |
| Appeal from any other decree or order to any other court | 30 days | Article 117 |
Articles 116 and 117, Limitation Act
First Appeals
Section 96 CPC provides for an appeal from every decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction, subject to statutory exceptions. A first appeal permits examination of questions of fact and law within the scope of the appeal. Section 96, CPC
Where the first appeal lies to the High Court, Article 116(a) normally provides 90 days. Where it lies to a District Court or another court other than the High Court, Article 116(b) normally provides 30 days.
However, several special enactments create their own appellate structures and time limits. Examples include consumer law, arbitration law, tax law, insolvency law, company law, intellectual-property law and tribunal legislation. The special provision must be checked first.
Appeals from Orders
Section 104 CPC and Order XLIII Rule 1 identify certain appealable orders, such as orders concerning injunctions, appointment of receivers, return of plaints and rejection of applications in particular circumstances. Section 104 and Order XLIII, CPC
Article 117 generally prescribes 30 days for appeals from orders. A litigant must nevertheless verify whether the particular order is appealable at all. A wrong choice between appeal, revision, review and petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can consume limitation time and create jurisdictional complications.
Second Appeals
A second appeal to the High Court is governed by Section 100 CPC and is maintainable only where the case involves a substantial question of law. It is not a second opportunity for a complete reappreciation of evidence or reassessment of pure factual findings. Section 100, CPC
Article 116(a) generally provides 90 days for an appeal to the High Court from a decree or order. The memorandum of second appeal should formulate the substantial question or questions of law proposed for consideration.
Appeals Against Ex Parte Decrees
A defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed may have more than one procedural option, depending on circumstances:
| Remedy | General legal basis | Limitation issue |
|---|---|---|
| Application to set aside ex parte decree | Order IX Rule 13 CPC | Article 123 ordinarily provides 30 days |
| First appeal against ex parte decree | Section 96(2) CPC | Usual appeal limitation applies |
| Review | Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC | Usually Article 124, subject to requirements |
| Challenge based on fraud or lack of jurisdiction | Depends on facts and remedy | May involve Sections 17, 5 or substantive law issues |
Article 123 provides 30 days for an application to set aside an ex parte decree. Time generally runs from the decree date, but where summons or notice was not duly served, it runs from the date the applicant had knowledge of the decree. Article 123, Limitation Act
Limitation for Review Applications
Review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used as a disguised appeal. Under Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC, review may be sought on grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason within the legal standard. Section 114 and Order XLVII, CPC
Article 124 generally prescribes 30 days for an application for review of judgment by a court other than the Supreme Court. Article 124, Limitation Act
A review applicant should state the date of judgment, date of knowledge where relevant, certified-copy details, exact review ground and the legal basis for any delay-condonation request.
Limitation for Civil Revisions
Section 115 CPC gives High Courts revisional jurisdiction in specified cases where no appeal lies and the subordinate court appears to have:
- Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
- Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.
- Acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Article 131 of the Limitation Act prescribes 90 days for an application to the High Court for exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Article 131, Limitation Act
Revision is not a substitute for an appeal. Before filing, verify:
- Whether an appeal lies under the CPC or a special statute.
- Whether the impugned order finally disposes of the suit or proceeding, where relevant to the statutory restriction.
- Whether the alleged error is jurisdictional rather than merely factual or discretionary.
- Whether Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is being invoked instead.
- Whether the relevant High Court Rules prescribe additional filing conditions.
Limitation for Execution of Decrees
A decree-holder who has obtained a favourable judgment must still enforce it. Winning the suit does not automatically result in payment, delivery of property or compliance with an injunction. Execution proceedings under Order XXI CPC are the mechanism for enforcement. Order XXI, CPC
Article 136 provides 12 years for an application for execution of a decree or order of any civil court, other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction. The period begins when the decree or order becomes enforceable. Where payment or delivery is directed at a certain date or recurring periods, the calculation may vary according to the terms of the decree. Article 136, Limitation Act
Article 135 provides three years for enforcement of a decree granting a mandatory injunction, calculated from the date of the decree or, where a date is fixed for performance, from that date. Article 135, Limitation Act
| Type of decree or enforcement request | Usual limitation period |
|---|---|
| Execution of ordinary civil decree or order | 12 years |
| Enforcement of mandatory injunction decree | 3 years |
| Application by purchaser at court auction for delivery | 1 year under Article 134 |
| Restoration of application for execution dismissed for default | 30 days under Article 122 |
Articles 122, 134, 135 and 136, Limitation Act
Section 5 does not apply to applications under Order XXI CPC. A decree-holder cannot assume that a delay in filing execution can be condoned on showing sufficient cause. Section 5, Limitation Act
A complete execution petition should ordinarily identify:
- The decree and date.
- The amount due, including interest and costs.
- Earlier execution applications, if any.
- Payments or adjustments.
- Details of judgment-debtor assets, if known.
- Requested mode of execution.
- Compliance with Order XXI and local court rules.
Condonation of Delay Under Section 5
Section 5 permits an appeal or application, other than an application under Order XXI CPC, to be admitted after expiry of limitation if the applicant satisfies the court that there was “sufficient cause” for not filing within time. Section 5, Limitation Act
Section 5 does not apply to suits. A plaintiff cannot file a time-barred suit with a routine “delay condonation application” and expect the court to entertain it. For suits, the plaintiff must rely on a substantive limitation provision such as Section 4, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 or a special statute.
A condonation application should be supported by a specific chronology:
| Required component | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Date of impugned order or decree | Establishes initial limitation calculation |
| Certified-copy application and delivery dates | Supports Section 12 exclusion |
| Date of receipt of legal advice or papers | May explain a part of delay but rarely justifies unexplained inactivity alone |
| Dates of illness, travel, custody, disaster or other events | Must be supported by records where possible |
| Date of actual knowledge, if relevant | Necessary where service or knowledge is disputed |
| Date of filing | Shows total delay accurately |
| Day-to-day or period-specific explanation | Demonstrates diligence and bona fides |
A generic statement that the file was misplaced, the party was busy, the office changed counsel, internal approvals took time or the previous lawyer did not act is usually inadequate unless supported by a convincing factual explanation. The longer the delay, the more carefully the court may scrutinise the explanation.
Exclusion of Time Under Section 14
Section 14 protects a litigant who has been prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence and in good faith in a court that, because of defect of jurisdiction or another cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it. Section 14, Limitation Act
The provision may apply to suits, appeals and applications, subject to its terms. It is designed to prevent a diligent party from losing a remedy merely because it pursued proceedings in a forum that lacked jurisdiction.
The claimant should be able to establish:
- The earlier proceeding concerned the same matter in issue.
- The earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence.
- It was prosecuted in good faith.
- The earlier court could not entertain it because of jurisdictional defect or a comparable cause.
- The period sought to be excluded is accurately calculated.
Section 14 is not a cure for deliberate forum shopping, negligence or a plainly untenable proceeding filed to buy time.
Disability: Minors and Persons Under Disability
Section 6 provides protection where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application is, at the time from which limitation is to be reckoned, a minor, insane or an idiot. Such a person may institute proceedings within the same period after the disability has ceased. Section 6, Limitation Act
Section 8 limits the extension in certain situations and provides that nothing in Sections 6 or 7 enables a suit to be instituted or application made after 30 years from the cessation of disability or death of the person affected. Section 8, Limitation Act
The disability must exist when the limitation period begins. A disability arising after time has begun to run does not stop the clock because of Section 9.
Continuing Breaches and Continuing Wrongs
Section 22 provides that in the case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment during which the breach or tort continues. Section 22, Limitation Act
The distinction between a continuing wrong and the continuing effect of a completed wrong is critical.
Examples that may require analysis include:
- Continuing unauthorised obstruction of an easement.
- Ongoing unlawful occupation in particular legal contexts.
- Repeated failure to perform a recurring contractual duty.
- Continued publication or use of material.
- Continued non-payment under a recurring obligation.
A single completed act that causes lasting consequences is not automatically a continuing wrong. The question is whether the wrongful state of affairs itself continues from day to day.
Legal Notices Do Not Automatically Extend Limitation
Serving a legal notice can be strategically useful. It can demand performance, record the claimant’s position, invite settlement, establish refusal, trigger a contractual dispute-resolution clause or satisfy a statutory precondition. It does not, however, automatically extend limitation.
A notice may become relevant where:
- The contract makes demand a condition for maturity of the claim.
- The relevant article runs from demand.
- The reply contains a valid written acknowledgment under Section 18.
- A statute requires prior notice.
- The notice reveals the date on which refusal became known.
A claimant should never wait for a reply to a legal notice if limitation is close to expiry. Filing should be planned independently of negotiations unless a legally effective standstill arrangement, acknowledgment or fresh contract exists.
Special Laws Override the General Limitation Framework
The Limitation Act is not the only source of limitation periods. Section 29(2) recognises that special or local laws may prescribe different periods. Where they do, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply only to the extent they are not expressly excluded by the special or local law. Section 29, Limitation Act
Common examples include:
| Area | Key statute | Limitation issue |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer disputes | Consumer Protection Act, 2019 | Complaint ordinarily within two years from cause of action |
| Arbitration | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 | Section 34 challenge generally within three months, extendable by up to 30 days on sufficient cause |
| Cheque dishonour | Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | Statutory notice and complaint timelines under Section 138 and Section 142 |
| Insolvency | Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | Limitation principles apply, but forum-specific practice and IBC provisions must be examined |
| Tax disputes | Respective tax statute | Appeal and revision deadlines are statute-specific |
| Company law | Companies Act, 2013 and NCLT/NCLAT rules | Statutory deadlines and condonation limits may differ |
| Service matters | Administrative Tribunal and service statutes | Tribunal limitation provisions may apply |
| Motor accident compensation | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | Different statutory scheme; historical limitation provisions have changed |
| Writ proceedings | Constitution and judicial doctrine | No fixed Limitation Act schedule period, but delay and laches apply |
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 generally requires a complaint to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises, while allowing delayed filing where sufficient cause is shown and recorded in writing. Section 69, Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an application to set aside an arbitral award must ordinarily be made within three months from receipt of the award, with a further period of up to 30 days where sufficient cause is shown; the court cannot extend time beyond that additional period. Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Criminal Limitation: A Different Framework
Criminal proceedings should not be analysed by mechanically applying civil-suit limitation articles. The BNSS, 2023 contains provisions governing limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences, while appeal rights and procedures arise from the BNSS, special criminal statutes and court rules. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The BNSS replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from 1 July 2024, subject to the commencement framework and transitional legal issues. Ministry of Home Affairs Notification
Limitation for Taking Cognizance of Certain Offences
Chapter XXXVII of the BNSS addresses limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. The scheme broadly mirrors the earlier criminal-procedure approach for less serious offences. BNSS, Chapter XXXVII
The general periods are:
| Maximum punishment for offence | Limitation period for taking cognizance |
|---|---|
| Fine only | 6 months |
| Imprisonment not exceeding 1 year | 1 year |
| Imprisonment exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 3 years | 3 years |
| Offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding 3 years | No statutory cognizance limitation under this chapter |
The relevant provisions must be checked against the exact offence, punishment clause, complaint date, police report, continuing-offence rule and any special statute. The limitation rules for cognizance do not create a universal deadline for filing every criminal appeal. BNSS, Chapter XXXVII
Where several offences are tried together, the limitation analysis generally follows the offence carrying the more severe punishment within the statutory scheme. The court may also extend the period in appropriate cases where delay has been properly explained or where extension is necessary in the interests of justice under the applicable provision.
Criminal Appeals and Revisions
The time for criminal appeals and revisions is not captured by one uniform table applicable to every court and offence. The governing source may include:
- The BNSS.
- A special enactment creating the offence or appeal.
- High Court criminal rules.
- Supreme Court Rules.
- The terms of a particular statutory appellate provision.
For example, an appeal under a special economic, regulatory, tax, anti-corruption, narcotics or securities statute can carry a period different from an ordinary criminal appeal. Counsel should identify the exact provision creating the right of appeal before calculating time.
A criminal revision, appeal against acquittal, victim appeal, appeal against conviction, appeal regarding sentence, bail challenge or petition invoking inherent jurisdiction may each follow different procedural requirements. There is no safe “one-size-fits-all” limitation advice for criminal matters.
Limitation for Special Leave Petitions Before the Supreme Court
A Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) under Article 136 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy. It is not a regular statutory appeal and is not available as a matter of right.
Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, an SLP is ordinarily to be filed within:
| Supreme Court proceeding | Usual time limit |
|---|---|
| SLP from judgment, decree, final order or sentence | 90 days |
| SLP after High Court refuses certificate of fitness | 60 days |
| Statutory civil or criminal appeal | Time prescribed by statute and applicable Supreme Court Rules |
| Review petition | Governed by Supreme Court Rules and case category |
The calculation for Supreme Court filing requires special care because it may involve certified copies, affidavits, vakalatnama, caveat checks, annexures, translations, court fees, e-filing defects and applications for exemption or condonation. A party should obtain specialist advice promptly after the High Court’s final order.
Limitation and Writ Petitions
The Limitation Act does not prescribe a standard Schedule period for writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and courts may refuse relief on grounds of delay and laches.
A writ petitioner should act promptly. Delay may be especially damaging where:
- Third-party rights have intervened.
- Public appointments, tenders or admissions have been completed.
- The petitioner acquiesced in the challenged action.
- The dispute turns on stale facts or records.
- An alternate statutory remedy was available and not pursued in time.
The absence of a fixed statutory limitation period does not mean a litigant can wait indefinitely.
Common Mistakes in Limitation Calculations
The following errors repeatedly lead to dismissal or unnecessary litigation:
- Treating three years as the universal period for all civil claims.
- Counting from the date of a legal notice rather than the date specified by the relevant article.
- Ignoring a shorter limitation period under a special statute.
- Filing an appeal without excluding the time requisite for certified copies under Section 12.
- Assuming Section 5 permits condonation in suits or execution applications under Order XXI CPC.
- Relying on an acknowledgment made after the original limitation period expired.
- Treating every ledger statement as a valid acknowledgment or every account as a mutual account.
- Confusing a continuing wrong with continuing consequences of a completed act.
- Filing revision where an appeal lies, or filing appeal where revision or review is the proper remedy.
- Delaying execution on the assumption that a decree can always be enforced.
- Forgetting that a mandatory-injunction decree normally has a three-year execution period under Article 135.
- Pleading fraud without stating the date and circumstances of discovery.
- Waiting for settlement negotiations to conclude without securing a written acknowledgment or filing within time.
- Assuming a court will overlook delay because the case has strong merits.
Practical Limitation Checklist for Lawyers and Litigants
Before drafting any plaint, appeal, revision, execution petition or statutory application, prepare a limitation chart containing the following:
| Question | Required answer |
|---|---|
| What is the exact remedy? | Suit, appeal, revision, review, execution, complaint, application, SLP or writ |
| Which court or tribunal has jurisdiction? | Civil court, commercial court, consumer commission, High Court, NCLT, arbitral court or Supreme Court |
| What provision creates the remedy? | CPC, Limitation Act, special statute or court rule |
| What article or section fixes limitation? | Identify exact article, section and any State amendment |
| What event starts limitation? | Breach, refusal, knowledge, order, decree, delivery, maturity or enforceability |
| Is the first day excluded? | Apply Section 12 |
| Is copy time excludable? | Record copy-application and delivery details |
| Is the final day a court holiday? | Apply Section 4 where available |
| Does acknowledgment or part-payment apply? | Confirm writing, signature, dates and statutory requirements |
| Was another proceeding pursued in good faith? | Consider Section 14 |
| Is delay condonation legally available? | Check Section 5 or special statute |
| Is there a statutory maximum extension? | Critical in arbitration and other special laws |
| What documents prove timely filing? | Preserve receipts, e-filing acknowledgments and registry endorsements |
Model Limitation Analysis: Money-Recovery Claim
Assume a supplier delivered goods on 10 January 2023 on a 60-day credit arrangement. The buyer did not pay when credit expired.
The preliminary analysis may be:
| Item | Example |
|---|---|
| Nature of claim | Price of goods sold and delivered on fixed credit |
| Potential article | Article 15 |
| Credit expiry | 11 March 2023, subject to contractual calculation |
| Limitation period | Three years |
| Initial last date | Calculated after excluding the first day and considering calendar computation |
| Possible extension | Valid written acknowledgment or qualifying part-payment before expiry |
| Evidence | Purchase order, invoice, delivery proof, credit term, ledger, correspondence, acknowledgment |
The legal notice date does not replace the credit-expiry date as the limitation trigger unless the contractual terms or applicable article make demand relevant.
Model Limitation Analysis: Appeal From Civil Decree
Assume a subordinate civil court passes a decree on 1 March 2026, and the appeal lies to the High Court.
| Item | Example |
|---|---|
| Remedy | First appeal under Section 96 CPC |
| Limitation provision | Article 116(a) |
| Basic period | 90 days |
| Date from which period runs | Date of decree/order, subject to Section 12 computation |
| Copy application | File immediately and retain proof |
| Copy exclusion | Exclude time requisite for obtaining certified copy where applicable |
| Filing documents | Memorandum of appeal, certified copy or permitted electronic record, application for stay, condonation application if needed |
The lawyer should calculate the last date before waiting for certified-copy delivery, because registry practice and the precise scope of exclusion can affect the result.
Model Limitation Analysis: Execution of Money Decree
Assume a money decree becomes enforceable on 1 July 2026.
| Item | Example |
|---|---|
| Remedy | Execution under Order XXI CPC |
| Article | Article 136 |
| Limitation period | 12 years |
| Starting point | Date decree becomes enforceable |
| Delay condonation under Section 5 | Not available for Order XXI applications |
| Strategic action | File promptly to identify assets and prevent dissipation |
Although the decree-holder has a long statutory window, prompt execution is commercially wiser. The judgment-debtor may dispose of assets, become insolvent, relocate or create complex enforcement obstacles.
Conclusion
Indian limitation law requires remedy-specific analysis. For many contractual and money claims, the period is three years; for title-based possession suits, it is ordinarily 12 years; for redemption of mortgages, it may be 30 years; for civil appeals to the High Court, it is generally 90 days; for appeals to other courts, it is generally 30 days; for civil revisions before a High Court, it is ordinarily 90 days; and for execution of most civil decrees, it is ordinarily 12 years.
The decisive question is not simply, “How old is the dispute?” It is: What is the exact legal remedy, which statute governs it, when did the legally relevant trigger occur, and what exclusions or extensions apply? A properly documented limitation calculation should be completed before filing, because a legally sound case can still fail if the remedy is pursued after the statutory deadline.
