Computation of Period of Limitation (Sections. 12-24)

Mains Questions – Limitation Act

Q. 1. Under the Limitation Act:
Under which section is it provided that time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment appealed from shall be excluded in computing period of limitation? [JS 2001]

Q. 2. What are the circumstances under which certain period of time is excluded while computing the limitation period? Explain. [JS 2014]

Q. 3. Advice ‘A’ in the following case:
“B’, the judgement debtor of ‘A’ prevents ‘A’ by fraud or force from executing the decree within the limitation period. [JS 2014]

Q. 4. Explain the provisions of the Limitation Act relating to the computation of the period of limitation. [HJS 1984]

Q. 5. Discuss the effect of death, fraud, mistake, acknowledgement in writing and substitution or addition of new plaintiffs or defendants in counting the period of limitation. [HJS 1984]

Q. 6. A gives a promissory note to B on 1.1.1983. A was out of India from 1.1.1984 to 1.1.1986. B sued A on 2.1.1986. Is this suit within the period of limitation? Discuss. [HJS 1986]

Q. 7. What are the days which could be excluded while computing the period of limitation? ([HJS 1998]

Q. 8. Examine the effect of ‘Fraud’ or Mistake on the period of Limitation. [HJS 1999]

Q. 9. In computing period of limitation for filing appeal against judgement of the Lower Court specify the days which are not to be counted or excluded. [HJS 2000]

Q. 10. Explain the principles regarding the exclusion of the time while computing the period of Limitation for suits and appeals. [HJS 2001]

Q. 11. Examine the effect of fraud or mistake on the period of limitation. [HJS 2003]

Q. 12. Discuss the law relating to the computation of the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application and exclusion of time bona fidely spent in pursuing proceedings in a Court having no jurisdiction. [HJS 2010]

Q. 13. ‘A’ advanced Rs. 10,000/- to ‘B’ on simple mortgage of his property on 1.1.1977. The period of repayment was one year from the date of the mortgage. In December 1980. ‘A’ died leaving ‘C’, a minor son aged one year. In 1998, ‘C’ filed a suit for sale of the mortgaged property. Is the suit within time? If so, explain. [HJS 2010]

Q. 14. ‘A’ is the agent of ‘P’, who resides in Chandigarh and ‘B’ handles one branch of P’s business in Mumbai. ‘P’ has a business of collecting antique items and selling them to interested buyers. For the same, ‘A’ is required to hold periodical auctions of valuable antique items in Mumbai. One such auction was held on 02.03.2008. Around 15 items were sold for a collective price of Rs. 25 lakhs. The said amount was less than the normal recovery which is to be expected in auction. ‘P’ enquires regarding the same from ‘A’ over the telephone but does not receive any satisfactory answer. Due to his hectic schedule, ‘P’ is unable to visit Mumbai for the next two years. He visits Mumbai on 20.03.2010. Upon reaching there, he makes extensive enquiry about the said transaction and finds out that ‘A’ had failed to give adequate notice to the public of the auction. The notice was given just 1 day before the auction and that too in a newspaper with limited circulation. Thus, goods which would have fetched around Rs. 75 lakh were sold for only Rs. 25 lakh for lack of competitive bidding. On his way back on 21.03.2010 he meets with an accident. He slips into a coma. He comes out of the coma on 10.06.2012. On 25.05.2013 he files a suit against ‘A’ for claiming damages for his losses. ‘A’ contends that the suit is barred by limitation as the limitation expires in 2011. ‘P’ contends that the period between 21.03.2010 and 10.06.2012 should be excluded in the computation of the limitation period. Adjudicate upon these contentions. [HJS 2013]

Q. 15. ‘X’ wanted to institute a suit against ‘Y’ for the breach of contract by ‘Y’ in relation to a contract of sale of goods. The goods were delivered to ‘Y’ on 12.11.2011 in Yamuna Nagar. Since the date of delivery, “Y’ is yet to pay for the goods despite repeated reminders. The lawyer admits that ‘X’ has a good case and advises him to file a case in the Yamuna Nagar. ‘X’ is not inclined to file the suit in Yamuna Nagar as “Y’ resides there and would be able to secure good legal representation. ‘X’ wants to file the suit in the Faridabad where ‘X’ has some relatives where it will not be very inconvenient for ‘X’ to attend to the case. Thus ‘X’ files the suit in Faridabad on 06.06.2013. He is very diligent in attending the court and pursuing his case. He is personally present on each hearing. On 08.10.2014, the court in Faridabad dismisses the suit on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the said suit. ‘X’ institutes a suit against “Y’ in Yamuna Nagar on 20.11.2014. Discuss the rules of computation of limitation period applicable and decide the case? [HJS 2013]

Q. 16. What period of time can be excluded while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application? [RJS 1974]

Q. 17. What is the effect of fraud or mistake on the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 for any suit or application? [RJS 2016]

Q. 18. A filed a suit for possession at Ambala against B. The subordinate Judge at Ambala dismissed the suit. A filed an appeal against the judgment and the decree of the subordinate judge, Ambala, before the District Judge of the adjoining district and not at Ambala. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the said Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Thereafter A filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ambala. It was barred by time. A prayed for condonation of delay, relying on section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Decide and give reasons. [DJS 1989]

Q. 19. Genuineness of a signature on a document was in dispute. Parties produced evidence on the point but did not examine hand writing expert. The trial judge himself compared the disputed signature with admitted signature of the alleged executant. He held that the disputed signature was forgery. In appeal this finding was assailed. Decide and give reasons. [DJS 1990]

Q. 20. A sum of Rs. 22,400 was payable to X on 01.08.1962 against a paid up Life Insurance Policy. X took two loans from L.L.C. against the security of this policy. On 01.08.1962 L.LC. Paid Rs. 18.205 to X after deducting the amount of second loan and inadvertently the amount of first loan, Rs. 14,474, was not deducted. This mistake was discovered on 20.05.1966, and suit for its realisation was filed on 08.07.1967. It is barred by time. LIC relies on section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that limitation for filing a suit for relief from consequences of a mistake will not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. It is submitted that the mistake could not be discovered in time on account of voluminous records and large number of business transactions and that LIC should not be allowed to suffer for the inadvertent lapse on the part of its staff. X says that mistake could have been easily discovered as the accounts of the LIC are audited periodically and there was mention of ‘second loan’ in the ledger. Only triable issue is whether the suit is within time? Decide it. [DJS 1991]

Q. 21. A suit was filed for specific performance to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs on the allegation that defendants No. 1 & 2 failed to honour their agreement dt. 12.04.1978 vide which they agreed to sell their building. X was added as defendant No. 3 alleging that he had similar right of getting specific performance of agreement in question but has not joined the plaintiffs in the suit and, therefore, had been impleaded as defendant. As per agreement, one-half of the property was proposed to be purchased by plaintiffs. While the other half was to be purchased by X. Subsequently X is sought to be transposed as plaintiff. This is opposed on the ground that this is not permissible under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and his transposition from array of defendants as plaintiff is far beyond the period of limitation for enforcing the agreement in relation to sale of his half share in the property in question and section 21 of the Limitation Act will apply and the suit will be barred by limitation. Decide the controversy giving reasons. [DJS 2000]

Q. 22. The plaintiff sued for recovery of money as an indigent person. The plaint was accompanied with an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC. An inquiry into the indigency of the plaintiff was ordered. The said inquiry remained pending and no progress was made therein. The plaintiff thereafter withdrew the application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC, wanting to proceed with the suit as a non-indigenous person. The defendant contended that the claim in suit, though within time when permission to sue as an indigent person was sought, was barred by time when the application under Order 33 Rule 1 was withdrawn. Decide the said objection. [DJS 2010]

Q. 23. Write short note on the following:
(a) Limitation in case of suit with application for leave to sue as pauper.
(b) Effect of death of a person on or before accrual of right to sue/be sued. [DJS 2015]

Q. 24. What are the rules for exclusion of computation of the period of limitation? What is the effect of Legal disability on limitation? [MPJS 2014]

Q. 25. Write short note on Effect of Prosecution of a suit before a wrong court on Limitation

Q. 26. A, a manufacturer of Cement, at Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, transported cement to various destinations through railway carriages and paid freight charge. On 21.1.1991 he sent a legal notice to the Western Railway under section 78-B of Indian Railway Act claiming refund of different amounts. The claim was rejected on 23.12.1991. The petitioner A filed the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Jaipur which by its order dated 25.11.1992 dismissed the petition holding it to be time barred under section 78-B of the Act which prescribes a period of 6 months for claiming refund of excess payments / over charges paid to Railways. A challenged the order of the tribunal before the High Court in an appeal contending that he had discovered the mistake when the railway authorities, vide their letter dt. 12.10.1990 confirmed that they have committed mistake in charging excess fright on wrong calculation of distance. A’s argument is that limitation starts running from the date of discovery of mistake and therefore, Section 17(1)(C) of limitation Act of 1963 will apply and Section 78-B of Railways Act has no application to the facts in this case. Railways contested the appeal on the ground that Section 17(1) (C) of Limitation Act would apply only to a suit instituted on an application moved in that behalf in a civil suit. How would you decide the appeal?
Note: Section 17(1)(C) of Limitation Act lays down that in a suit-for relief from the consequence of a fraud or mistake, the period of Limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff has discovered the fraud or mistake. [DJS 1996]

Exclusion of Time in Legal Proceedings (S. 12)

Q.1. State briefly the law relating to exclusion of time in legal proceedings under the Limitation Act, 1963. [RJS 2014]