Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy.
Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. [See: N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123]
The bedrock of law on limitation flows from two age-old Latin maxims; interest reipublicae up sit finis litium and vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which mean; “it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation” and “the law assists those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights”, respectively. The former emphasizes that protracted litigation puts a strain on the judicial system and undermines the law’s role in dispute resolution, and so the public interest requires that disputes be resolved in some final form rather than continuing indefinitely to drain the resources of courts and the parties. While the later connotes that a person who has slept on his rights may be denied enforcement of the same when the resulting delay would cause an unfair prejudice.
What flows from the aforesaid is that the dominant objective underlying the law of limitation is that any lis cannot be kept in a state of flux or uncertainty, doubt or suspense. Public interest demands that at some point finality be put to the litigation. It is in this context that the Limitation Act, prescribes the specific points of time from which the period of limitation begins to run for the institution of actions or recourse to litigation. On expiry of such period, no action can be initiated save and except where the court condones the delay for a sufficient cause. A party who is insensible to the value of civil remedies, and who does not assert his claim with promptitude is denied the ability toenforce even an otherwise rightful claim. [See: DDA v. Tejpal & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 433]
Section 3 of the Limitation Act
At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under: –
“3. Bar of limitation.—
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), 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.
(2) For the purposes of this Act,— (a) a suit is instituted,— (i) (ii) (iii) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;
(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— (i) (ii) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded; in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court;
(c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that court.”
Bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no room for doubt that if a suit is instituted, appeal is preferred or application is made after the prescribed period, it has to be dismissed even though no such plea has been raised or defence has been set up. In other words, even in the absence of such plea by the defendant, respondent or opponent, as the case may be, the court or authority must dismiss such suit, appeal or application, if it is satisfied that the suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation. Limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation, a court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits. [See: Noharlal Verma v. Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 445]
Section 3 sub-section (1) of the Limitation Act makes every proceeding filed after the prescribed period, liable to be dismissed, subject however to the provisions in Section(s) 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. It mandates that it would be the duty of the court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defence. If a suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation, a court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation. [See: V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao, (2005) 4 SCC 613]
Fundamental Pillars of the law on limitation
The above exposited fundamental pillars of the law on limitation, namely,
(i) that the sword of prosecution ought not to be hanging over an individual for an indeterminate period and
(ii) those who have been lethargic in safeguarding their interests should not expect the law to come to their rescue, are reflected in Section 3 of the Limitation Act, more particularly sub-section (1) inasmuch as it enjoins a duty upon the courts to dismiss any suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by Schedule I irrespective of the fact whether the opponent had set up the plea of limitation or not. It is the duty of the court not to proceed with the application if it is made beyond the period of limitation prescribed.
Thus, the Limitation Act is an embodiment of a clear legislative policy that litigation must be commenced, prosecuted, and concluded within a definite timeframe. Section 3 of the Limitation Act gives effect to this mandate in categorical terms by obligating courts to dismiss every suit, appeal, or application instituted beyond the prescribed period, irrespective of whether limitation is raised as a defence. This provision is not a matter of discretion but of duty, for it reflects the underlying public interest in ensuring certainty, finality, and repose in legal disputes.
Reference
Shivamma (dead) by LRS v. Karnataka Housing Board