Supreme Court in Hameed Joharan (Dead) & Ors. v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by LRs & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 573, wherein it was observed that the general policy of the law of limitation encapsulated in the Limitation Act is to favour the use of legal diligence. Expounding the maxim of ‘vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt’ it was held that a court of law never tolerates an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity. It further held that lapse of time is a species for forfeiture of right. The relevant observations read as under: –
“14. Needless to record that engrossment of stamped paper would undoubtedly render the decree executable but that does not mean and imply, however, that the enforceability of the decree would remain suspended until furnishing of the stamped paper — this is opposed to the fundamental principle on which the statutes of limitation are founded. It cannot but be the general policy of our law to use the legal diligence and this has been the consistent legal theory from the ancient times: even the doctrine of prescription in Roman law prescribes such a concept of legal diligence and since its incorporation therein, the doctrine has always been favoured rather than claiming disfavour. Law courts never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity — the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent). As a matter of fact, lapse of time is a species for forfeiture of right.
Wood, V.C. in Manby v. Bewicke (K&J at p. 352) stated: (ER p. 1144) “The legislature has in this, as in every civilized country that has ever existed, thought fit to prescribe certain limitations of time after which persons may suppose themselves to be in peaceful possession of their property, and capable of transmitting the estates of which they are in possession, without any apprehension of the title being impugned by litigation in respect of transactions which occurred at a distant period, when evidence in support of their own title may be most difficult to obtain.””
As aptly noted in Hameed Joharan (supra), lapse of time is a specie for forfeiture of right, which is why where a litigant allows the limitation to expire for any right or remedy, due to its own volition, be it in the form of, inaction, lethargy, negligence or mistake, which could have been avoided, no indulgence should ordinarily be shown by the courts in entertaining or enforcing the assertion of such rights, de hors, the litigant otherwise demonstrating a cause for such delay, which may as well also fit within any of the parameters of the exceptions carved out within Section(s) 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act.
Reference
Shivamma (dead) through LRS v. Karnataka Housing Board