Skip to content
Home » Limitation Act 1963

Limitation Act 1963

THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963

ACT NO. 36 OF 1963 [5th October, 1963]

An Act to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fourteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

PART I
PRELIMINARY

SECTIONS

1. Short title, extent and commencement.
2. Definitions.

PART II
LIMITATION OF SUITS, APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS

3. Bar of limitation.
4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.
5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases
6. Legal disability.
7. Disability of one of several persons.
8. Special exceptions.
9. Continuous running of time.
10. Suits against trustees and their representatives.
11. Suits on contracts entered into outside the territories to which the Act extends.

PART III
COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.
13. Exclusion of time in cases where leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for.
14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.
15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases.
16. Effect of death on or before the accrual of the right to sue.
17. Effect of fraud or mistake.
18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.
19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.
20. Effect of acknowledgment or payment by another person.
21. Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant.
22. Continuing breaches and torts.
23. Suits for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage.
24. Computation of time mentioned in instruments.

PART IV
ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP BY POSSESSION

25. Acquisition of easements by prescription.
26. Exclusion in favour of reversioner of servient tenement.
27. Extinguishment of right to property.

PART V
MISCELLANEOUS

28. [Repealed.]
29. Savings.
30. Provision for suits, etc., for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
31. Provisions as to barred or pending suits, etc.
32. [Repealed.]

THE SCHEDULE
(PERIODS OF LIMITATION)
[See sections 2(j) and 3]
FIRST DIVISION—SUITS

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

PART I.—SUITS RELATING TO ACCOUNTS

1. For the balance due on a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties. Three years The close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account; such year to be computed as in the account.
2. Against a factor for an account. Three years When the account is, during the continuance of the agency, demanded and refused or, where no such demand is made, when the agency terminates.
3. By a principal against his agent for movable property received by the latter and not accounted for. Three years When the account is, during the continuance of the agency, demanded and refused or, where no such demand is made, when the agency terminates.
4. Other suits by principals against agents for neglect or misconduct. Three years When the neglect or misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff.
5. For an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership. Three years The date of the dissolution.

PART II.—SUITS RELATING TO CONTRACTS

6. For a seaman‟s wages Three years The end of the voyage during which the wages are earned.
7. For wages in the case of any other person. Three years When the wages accrue due.
8. For the price of food or drink sold by the keeper of a hotel, tavern or lodging-house. Three years When the food or drink is delivered.
9. For the price of lodging. Three years When the price becomes payable.
10. Against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods. Three years When the loss or injury occurs.
11. Against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery of, or delay in delivering, goods. Three years When the goods ought to be delivered.
12. For the hire of animals, vehicles, boats or household furniture. Three years When the hire becomes payable.
13. For the balance of money advanced in payment of goods to be delivered. Three years When the goods ought to be delivered.
14. For the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon. Three years The date of the delivery of the goods.
15. For the price of goods sold and delivered to be paid for after the expiry of a fixed period of credit. Three years When the period of credit expires.
16. For the price of goods sold and delivered to be paid for by a bill of exchange, no such bill being given. Three years When the period of the proposed bill elapses.
17. For the price of trees or growing crops sold by the plaintiff to the defendant where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon. Three years The date of the sale.
18. For the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment. Three years When the work is done.
19. For money payable for money lent. Three years When the loan is made.
20. Like suit when the lender has given a cheque for the money. Three years When the cheque is paid.
21. For money lent under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand. Three years When the loan is made.
22. For money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, including money of a customer in the hands of his banker so payable. Three years When the demand is made.
23. For money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant. Three years When the money is paid.
24. For money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant, for the plaintiff’s use. Three years When the money is received.
25. For money payable for interest upon money due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Three years When the interest becomes due.
26. For money payable to the plaintiff for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them. Three years When the accounts are stated in writing signed by the defendant or his agent duly authorised in this behalf, unless where the debt is, by a simultaneous agreement in writing signed as aforesaid, made payable at a future time, and then when that time arrives.

 

 

 

 

G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Lis Pendens – A transfer which is made lis pendens is not a void document. It does create rights as between the parties to the sale. The right of the party to the suit who conveys his right by a sale is extinguished. All that Section 52 of the Transfer Property Act provides is that the transfer which is made during the pendency of the proceeding is subjected to the final result of the litigation.

Ahmmadsahab Abdul Milla v. Bibijan

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – Specific Performance of a Contract – Whether the use of the expression “date” used in Art.54 of the Schedule to the Act is suggestive of a specific date in the calendar – Held, The expression ‘date’ used in Art. 54 of the Schedule to the Act definitely is suggestive of a specified date in the calendar. AIR 2009 SC 2193 : 2009 (5) Bom.C.R. 324 : JT  2009 (14) SC 364 : 2009 (2) KLT 277 : 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 117 : 2009 (5) Scale 437 : (2009) 5 SCC 462 : 2009 (5) SCR 476 : 2009 (3) Supreme 116

Krishna Kumar Sharma v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Limitation Act, 1963 – Application for grant of probate or letters of Administration is covered by Article 137. 2009 (4) All.M.R. 493 : AIR 2009 SC 3247 : AIR 2009 SCW 3275 : JT  2009 (4) SC 533 : 2009 (2) KLT 149 : 2009 (5) Scale 286 : (2009) 11 SCC 537 : 2009 (4) SCR 1223 : 2009 (3) Supreme 165

J. Kumaradasan Nair v. IRIC Sohan

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Interpretation and/or application of – Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. AIR 2009 SC 1333 : 2010 (2) ALT 27 : JT  2009 (2) SC 707 : 2009 (1) KLT 874 : 2009 (2) Scale 544 : (2009) 12 SCC 175 : 2009 (3) SCR 238

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara

Limitation Act, 1963 – While deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and would have only seen whether sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it. AIR 2009 (Supp.) SC 195 : AIR 2009 SCW 1456 : 2009 (2) All.M.R. 429 : 2009 (2) LLJ 617 : 2009 (2) Scale 186 : (2009) 3 SCC 525

Pundlik J. Patil v. Executive Engineer

Limitation Act, 1963 – Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. AIR 2008 (Supp.) SC 1025 : 2008 (6) All.M.R. 954 : 2008 (6) ALT 38 : 2008 (6) Bom.C.R. 513 : JT 2008 (11) SC 596 :  2009 (1) KLT SN 25 :  2008 (13) Scale 773 : (2008) 17 SCC 448 : 2008 (15) SCR 135 : 2008 (8) SLT 575