Limitation Bars the Remedy but Does Not Extinguish the Right: A Foundational Principle of Limitation Law

The law of limitation is essential for keeping the law predictable while still protecting fairness. A key, often‑repeated idea behind it is that the limitation period only stops a court from granting a remedy; it does not erase the underlying right itself. Originating in common‑law tradition and adopted in Indian case law, this concept means that even if a claim is “time‑barred,” the legal right behind it remains alive.

This notion affects many areas—civil lawsuits, property disputes, contract issues, and equitable claims—and it continues to shape how judges interpret the Limitation Act of 1963.

Conceptual Meaning of the Principle

To understand the doctrine, it is essential to distinguish between a right and a remedy:

• Right: A legally recognized interest or entitlement.
• Remedy: The means by which a right is enforced through judicial process.

The law of limitation primarily targets the remedy, not the right. Once the prescribed limitation period expires, the aggrieved party loses the right to approach the court, but the substantive right itself survives, unless expressly extinguished by statute.

Statutory Basis under Indian Law

Section 3, Limitation Act, 1963

Section 3 mandates that every suit, appeal, or application filed beyond the prescribed period must be dismissed, even if limitation is not raised as a defence.

However, the provision is procedural in nature—it does not declare that the underlying right is destroyed.

Exception – Section 27

Section 27 of the Limitation Act carves out a crucial exception:

In cases of suits for possession of property, the expiration of the limitation period extinguishes the right itself.

Thus, extinguishment of right is the exception, not the rule.

Judicial Interpretation: Leading Case Laws

Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed this principle:

• Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 328)
  The Supreme Court held that limitation bars the remedy but does not destroy the right, except where the statute expressly provides otherwise.
• Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha (1993) 1 SCC 499
  A time-barred debt remains a lawful debt and can form valid consideration for a fresh promise.
• State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty (1999) 3 SCC 657
  The expiry of limitation does not obliterate the debt; it merely bars its enforceability through court.
• Tilak Ram v. Nathu (AIR 1967 SC 935)
  A barred claim may still be set up as a defence or adjustment.

Practical Illustrations

Example 1: Time-Barred Debt

A lends money to B. B fails to repay, and A does not file a suit within the limitation period.

• A cannot sue B after limitation expires.
• But the debt still exists.
• If B voluntarily repays or acknowledges the debt, it is legally valid.

Example 2: Set-Off or Defence

A time-barred claim cannot be enforced as a suit but may still be raised as a defensive plea or set-off, depending on circumstances.

Example 3: Fresh Promise

Under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a written promise to pay a time-barred debt is enforceable—again affirming that the right survives despite the barred remedy.

Rationale Behind the Doctrine

This rule is based on practical and fair policy reasons:

• Preventing old claims – Over time, evidence can get lost or unclear.
• Saving court resources – Courts should not be overloaded with very old cases.
• Fairness to creditors – Debtors should not benefit just because time has passed.
• Balance between parties – It protects defendants from old claims while still keeping rights intact and avoiding unfair advantage.

Comparative Perspective

This principle comes from English common law, which India has also followed. Under this approach, time limits mainly control how and when a case can be brought before a court, not whether the legal right itself exists. In some civil law countries, the expiry of time can completely end a legal right. However, Indian law takes a more balanced view. It treats limitation as a procedural rule meant to ensure timely action and legal certainty, while generally preserving substantive rights. This shows that Indian limitation law focuses on discipline in litigation rather than punishing parties by erasing their rights merely because time has passed.

Critical Analysis

While this legal principle helps protect important rights, some people say it has problems. They worry:

• It mixes up what’s morally right with what the law requires.
• It might push people to use unofficial ways to enforce rules.
• Special cases, like Section 27, make the system harder to understand and unfair.
  Still, judges keep supporting this idea because they believe it’s crucial for a stable and fair legal system.

Case Law Chart

 Conclusion

The principle that limitation bars the remedy but not the right is a basic rule of Indian law. It means that while courts may refuse to hear late cases, the legal right itself usually continues to exist. This approach promotes discipline and timely action without unfairly destroying rights. Except in a few specific cases laid down by law, rights are not lost just because time has passed—only the court remedy is.