What is exclusion of time and extension of time under The indian Limitation Act?

 The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 provides two distinct mechanisms to address timing issues in legal proceedings: exclusion of time and extension of time. These provisions ensure fairness and prevent technical delays from defeating genuine legal claims.

Exclusion of Time (Sections 12-15)

Exclusion of time refers to specific periods that are not counted when calculating the limitation period for filing suits, appeals, or applications. This operates automatically and does not require court discretion.

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON LIMITATION ACT PART 4

S 25 Acquisition of easement by prescription

The following conditions must be satisfied for the acquisition of right to easement:

a) In the case of access and use of light or air to and for any building: that they have been enjoyed therewith-

1)Peaceably

2) as an easement,

3) as of right,

4) without interruption,

5) for 20 years(or in case of government property for 30 years).

b) in the case of any way,or watercourse or the use of any water or any other easement: that it has been enjoyed therewith-

1) Peaceably,

2) openly,

3) by any person claiming title thereto,

4)as an easement,

5) of right,

6) without interruption,

7) for 20 years(or in case of government property for 30 years).

Read important Judgments on easement:

Click here

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON LIMITATION ACT PART 3

S 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing:-

Acknowledgment means a definite, clear admission of existing liability.

It is not necessary that there should be promise to pay. An acknowledgment does not create any new right of action but only enlarges the time and has the effect of making a new period run from the date of acknowledgment. Under this section, an acknowledgment is not limited in respect of a debt only, it may be in respect of “any property or right” which is the subject matter of the suit. There must be an unqualified,or an admission qualified by a condition which is fulfilled.

Ingredients of S 18 and essentials of a valid acknowledgment:-

To constitute a valid acknowledgment and thus to give a fresh period of limitation under this section,the following conditions must be satisfied.

1) The acknowledgment must have been made before the expiration of the period prescribed.

2) The acknowledgment must have been made by the party against whom the right is then claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability.

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON LIMITATION ACT 1963 Part 2

S 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases:-

The present section says that time is to be excluded in the following circumstances:-

Sub S 1- When a suit or execution proceedings are stayed by injunction or order.

Sub S 2- When notice to government or any other authority is necessary, the period of notice. Where notice is not mandatory, period will not be excluded.

Sub S 4 – In computing the period of limitation for a suit for possession by a purchaser at a sale in execution of decree, the time during which proceeding to set aside sale has been prosecuted shall be excluded.

Sub S 5 -When defendant has been absent from India.

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON LIMITATION ACT 1963 PART 1

S 2 Definitions:-

f) Easement includes a right not arising from contract, by which one person is entitled to remove and appropriate for his own profit any part of soil belonging to another or anything growing in or attached to,or subsisting upon the land of another;

h) Good faith- Nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention;

m) Tort -It means a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust;

S 3. Bar of limitation:-

Sub S 1- Every suit instituted,appeal preferred and application made after prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as defence.

Sub S 2- For the purposes of this Act:-

a) A suit is instituted

1) when plaint is presented to proper officer;

2) in the case of pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made;

b) Any claim by way of a set off,or a counter claim shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted-

1) in the case of set off, on the date as the suit in which set off is pleaded;

2) in the case of counter claim, on the date on which counter claim is made in court;

Print Page

Whether limitation period provided in S 138 of NI Act shall prevail over limitation Act?

Equivalent Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)JOURNAL260, I(2015)BC308(Mad.), 2014(5)CTC808, 2014(4)MLJ(Crl)225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Crl. A. No. 679 of 2009

Decided On: 14.08.2014

C. Ponnusamy Vs.  Chinnamman Constructions

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:M. Venugopal, J.

Limitation - Condone of delay - Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 4 and 24 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Present appeal filed against order whereby, Appellant's complaint against Respondent for offence of dishonor of cheque, was dismissed on ground of delay - Whether delay could be condoned - Held, on record that for filing complaint under Act, 1881 limitation period of one month would start from day on which period of fifteen days from date of receipt of notice by drawer expired - It was well settled that working of Act, 1881 exclude operation of Act, 1963 when criminal liability was fastened in respect of civil liability - Materials on record that there was delay of two days in preferring complaint - No sufficient explanation had been given by Appellant for delay in filing complaint - Therefore, delay could not be condoned - Appeal dismissed. [paras 53, 54 and 84]

Print Page

Whether limitation provided in carriage by Air Act will prevail over indian limitation Act

International Law – Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (69 of 1972), II Schedule, Rules 29 & 30 – Limitation Act, 1963

(36 of 1963), Section 29(2) – Carriage by Air Act enacted to give effect to Convention for unification of certain Rules

relating to International carriage by air signed at Warsaw – Carriage by Air Act is a Special enactment – Carriage by

Air Act being International Law prevails over General law.

Carriage by Air Act, 1972, II Schedule, Rules 29 & 30 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963, Section 29(2),

Article 14 – Suit for recovery of money on account of damage caused to Cargo – Time limit prescribed by Carriage

by Air Act is two years – Plaintiffs initially moved Consumer forum – Forum returned Complaint, granting liberty to

Plaintiffs to move Civil Court – Time spent in Consumer Forum does not automatically save limitation as Consumer

Forum is only a Quasi-Judicial Tribunal – Suit presented before Civil Court thereafter, held, barred by limitation –

Suit fails.

Madras High Court

M/S M.R.F. Limited vs M/S Singapore Airlines Limited on 3 February, 2014

Print Page