Computation of the Period of Limitation

Note the two halves. The time is excluded, and the belated payment of fees relates back. Section 149 of the Code does the same work for a deficient fee generally. See [Inherent Powers, Caveat and Miscellaneous] and [Suits by Indigent Persons].

Section 14: proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction

This is the most examined section in the group.

Section 14(1): in computing the period for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether at first instance or in appeal or revision, against the defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

Section 14(2) does the same for applications, where the earlier proceeding was against the same party for the same relief.

Section 14(3): notwithstanding Order XXIII Rule 2 of the Code, sub-section (1) applies to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted under Order XXIII Rule 1, where the permission was granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.

Sub-section (3) is a genuine qualification of what [Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits] says. Order XXIII Rule 2 provides that a fresh suit on permission is bound by limitation as if the first had never been instituted. Section 14(3) carves out the case where the permission was given because of a jurisdictional defect, and there the earlier time is excluded after all.

The Explanation settles three points that would otherwise be argued:

(a) in excluding the time during which a former proceeding was pending, both the day it was instituted and the day it ended are counted (b) a plaintiff or applicant resisting an appeal is deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding (c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is deemed a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction

The conditions to state in an answer are therefore five: another civil proceeding, prosecuted with due diligence, in good faith, relating to the same matter in issue against the same defendant, in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause.

Section 15: other exclusions

Section 15(1): in computing the period for any suit or application for execution of a decree, the institution or execution of which has been stayed by an injunction or order, the time of the continuance of that injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.

Section 15(2): where notice has been given, or the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required, before instituting a suit, the period of that notice, or the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction, shall be excluded.

Sub-section (2) is what protects a plaintiff who must give two months' notice under section 80 of the Code before suing the Government: those two months do not count against him. See [Suits by and against the Government and Public Officers].

Section 15(3) excludes time during which a receiver or interim receiver is appointed or the defendant's estate is under insolvency proceedings, in the cases the sub-section specifies. Section 15(4) excludes, in a suit for possession by a purchaser at an execution sale, the time during which a proceeding to set aside the sale was prosecuted. Section 15(5) excludes the time during which the defendant has been absent from India.

Postponing the start: sections 16, 17 and 23

Section 16: death before the right accrues

Section 16 provides for the case where a person who would have been entitled to sue dies before the right accrues, or where a person against whom the right would have accrued dies before it accrues. In such cases the period is computed from the time when there is a legal representative capable of instituting or being sued. The section contains express exceptions, including suits to enforce rights of pre-emption and suits for possession of immovable property or of a hereditary office.

Section 17: fraud or mistake

Section 17(1): where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period is prescribed:

(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which it is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) any document necessary to establish the right has been fraudulently concealed,

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it; or, in the case of a concealed document, until he first had the means of producing it or compelling its production.

The words "or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it" are the limit. Section 17 protects a person kept in ignorance, not a person who was merely incurious.

The proviso protects innocent purchasers. Nothing in the section enables a suit to recover or enforce a charge against, or set aside a transaction affecting, property which has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not know or have reason to believe that a fraud had been committed; or, in the case of mistake, purchased for value after the transaction by a person who did not know of the mistake; or, in the case of a concealed document, purchased for value by a person not a party to the concealment.

Section 17(2): where a judgment-debtor has by fraud or force prevented the execution of a decree within the period, the court may, on the judgment-creditor's application made after the expiry, extend the period for execution, provided the application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of the force.

Section 23: continuing breaches and torts

Section 23: in the case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.

That is why an obstruction to a right of way, or a continuing nuisance, does not become unchallengeable merely because it began long ago.

Sections 21, 22 and 24

Section 21(1): where after the institution of a suit a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party. The proviso allows the court, where it is satisfied that the omission was due to a mistake made in good faith, to direct that the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.

That mirrors Order I Rule 10(5) of the Code exactly, and the two should be given together. See [Parties to a Suit].

Section 21(2) makes clear that the section does not apply to a case where a party is added or substituted owing to assignment or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant a plaintiff.

Section 22: in the case of a continuing breach or tort, and generally, where a specified period is prescribed for a suit or application in respect of a right which is continuing, a fresh period begins as the right continues, in the terms the section provides.

Section 24: all instruments shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be made with reference to the Gregorian calendar.

A worked example

Sadiq's cause of action arises on 1 April 2023 and the Schedule allows three years.

When does the clock start? Section 12(1): the day from which the period is reckoned is excluded, so it starts on 2 April 2023.

He loses at trial and wants to appeal. Section 12(2) and (3): he excludes the day the judgment was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining copies of the decree and the judgment.

He waited a month after the judgment before applying for the copy. The Explanation to section 12: time taken by the court to prepare the decree before he applied for a copy is not excluded, so his own month of inaction counts against him. Under Order XX Rule 6A of the Code he could have filed the appeal without the decree.

He had earlier sued in the wrong court, in good faith, on the same matter, and that court returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. Section 14(1): the time he spent prosecuting that proceeding with due diligence is excluded, and by the Explanation both the first and the last day of it are counted in the exclusion.

The earlier suit failed because he had misjoined parties. Explanation (c) to section 14: misjoinder is a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction, so the exclusion still applies.

He had withdrawn the earlier suit with permission because of the jurisdictional defect. Section 14(3): notwithstanding Order XXIII Rule 2, the exclusion applies to the fresh suit.

His claim is against the State and he had to give two months' notice. Section 15(2): the period of the notice is excluded.

He discovers years later that the defendant concealed the very document on which his title rests. Section 17(1)(d): the period does not begin to run until he first had the means of producing the document or compelling its production. But if the property has since been bought for value by someone not party to the concealment and without notice of it, the proviso protects that purchaser.

A new defendant is added in 2026. Section 21(1): as regards that defendant the suit is deemed instituted when he was made a party, unless the court is satisfied the omission was due to a mistake in good faith and directs otherwise.

The wrong complained of is a continuing nuisance. Section 23: a fresh period begins at every moment during which it continues.

What it does not mean

Section 12 does not exclude all the time before filing. It excludes the first day, the day of pronouncement, and the time requisite for copies, and the Explanation excludes the party's own delay in applying.

Section 14 is not available to a careless litigant. It requires due diligence and good faith, and the earlier court must have been unable to entertain the proceeding for want of jurisdiction or a like cause.

Section 17 does not protect the incurious. Time runs from when the fraud or mistake could with reasonable diligence have been discovered.

Section 17 does not defeat an innocent purchaser for value. The proviso protects him.

Adding a party does not relate back automatically. Section 21(1) fixes the date at the addition, subject to the good-faith mistake proviso.

Quick revision

Exclusions. Section 12: exclude the first day; for appeals, revisions and reviews also the day of pronouncement and the time requisite for copies of the decree and judgment; Explanation, court time before the copy application is not excluded. Section 13: time spent prosecuting a rejected pauper application in good faith, with fees paid later relating back. Section 14: time prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence and in good faith, on the same matter, in a court unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause; both the first and last days counted; misjoinder counts as a like cause; applies to a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 where permission was given for a jurisdictional defect. Section 15: time under a stay or injunction; the period of a statutory notice or of obtaining consent; receivership and insolvency; proceedings to set aside an execution sale; and the defendant's absence from India.

Postponement. Section 16: death before the right accrues, period runs from when there is a legal representative. Section 17: in cases of fraud, concealment or mistake, time runs from discovery or when it could with reasonable diligence have been discovered; proviso protects a purchaser for value without notice; sub-section (2) allows an extension for execution prevented by fraud or force, applied for within one year. Section 23: a continuing breach or tort gives a fresh period at every moment.

Others. Section 21: an added party is deemed sued from the date of addition, unless the omission was a mistake in good faith. Section 24: the Gregorian calendar.

Test yourself

1. What days are excluded in computing the period for an appeal? The day from which the period is to be reckoned, under section 12(1); the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order, under section 12(2); and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment, under section 12(3).

2. Is the time taken by the court to prepare the decree excluded? Not the time taken before the party applies for a copy. The Explanation to section 12 provides that in computing the time requisite for obtaining a copy, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy is made shall not be excluded.

3. State the conditions for excluding time under section 14. The plaintiff must have been prosecuting another civil proceeding, with due diligence and in good faith, against the same defendant, relating to the same matter in issue, in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature was unable to entertain it. Misjoinder of parties or causes of action is deemed a cause of a like nature, and both the day the former proceeding was instituted and the day it ended are counted.

4. When does time begin to run in a case of fraud or mistake? Under section 17(1), not until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it; and in the case of a fraudulently concealed document, until he first had the means of producing the document or compelling its production.

5. Does section 17 affect a purchaser of the property? Not an innocent one. The proviso protects property purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud or concealment and did not know or have reason to believe of it, and in the case of mistake, one who purchased for value after the transaction without knowing of the mistake.

6. What is the effect of a continuing breach or tort? Under section 23 a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort continues.

7. A new defendant is added after the suit is filed. From when does limitation run against him? Under section 21(1) the suit is, as regards him, deemed to have been instituted when he was made a party, unless the court is satisfied that the omission to include him was due to a mistake made in good faith, in which case it may direct that the suit be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.