The law of limitation sets a time limit within which a legal case must be filed in court. In India, this is mainly governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. If a case is filed after the prescribed period, the court is generally required to dismiss it.
However, courts often observe that limitation is not just a question of law but a question of both law and fact. This means that limitation cannot be decided by merely reading the statute; the court must also examine the facts of each case.
What Does Limitation Mean?
Limitation refers to the maximum time fixed by law within which a person must file a legal case in court. For example, a suit for recovery of money is generally required to be filed within three years, while some property-related cases may have a longer time limit. If a case is filed after the limitation period has expired, the court must examine the reasons given for the delay before deciding whether the case can proceed.
Why Limitation Is Not Only a Legal Issue?
While limitation periods are clearly mentioned in the law, applying them requires the court to determine several factual aspects, such as:
- When did the cause of action actually arise?
- When did the person become aware of the issue?
- Was there any fraud involved?
- Was there a written acknowledgment or promise?
- Has the delay been satisfactorily explained?
Since these questions depend on evidence and factual circumstances, limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact.
Understanding Law and Fact Simply
- Question of law: What does the Limitation Act provide?
- Question of fact: What actually happened in this particular case?
Both elements must be considered to decide whether a case is time-barred.
Important Provisions
Section 3, Limitation Act: Courts must dismiss a case filed beyond the limitation period, even if the opposite party does not raise an objection.
Section 5: Courts may condone delay if the party shows sufficient cause.
Section 18: A written acknowledgment of liability can extend the limitation period.
Section 17: In cases involving fraud, limitation begins from the date the fraud is discovered.
All these provisions require factual examination.
What the Courts Have Held
In Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Association, the Supreme Court made it clear that limitation is not a purely legal issue in all cases. It is often a mixed question of law and fact. A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as time-barred only when the bar is apparent from the averments in the plaint itself (without reference to the defendant’s case or external evidence). The Court emphasized that courts should not dissect or compartmentalize pleadings and that rejection at the threshold is permissible only where the suit is “clearly” or “ex facie” barred by limitation.
In Balasaria Construction v. Hanuman Seva Trust, the Supreme Court observed that the issue of limitation should not be decided at the very threshold (e.g., under Order VII Rule 11) unless it is clearly apparent from the pleadings alone that the suit is time-barred. Where limitation involves disputed facts or is a mixed question of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected summarily, and the matter must proceed to trial (potentially framing a preliminary issue if needed).
In P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, the Supreme Court reiterated that when facts relating to limitation (such as date of knowledge, fraud, or when the cause of action arose) are disputed or require proof, the court cannot reject the plaint at the threshold. Parties must be allowed to lead evidence, as limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact in such scenarios. Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and should be exercised sparingly.
In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, the Supreme Court held that for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the length of the delay is not decisive by itself. What matters is whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable, acceptable, bona fide, and genuine. The Court stressed that limitation rules are meant to advance substantial justice, not to penalize parties rigidly for procedural delays (absent mala fides or deliberate tactics).
Simple Examples
In a property dispute, a person may challenge a sale deed after ten years by saying that the fraud came to light only recently. In such a case, the court cannot decide limitation only by looking at dates; it must examine when the fraud was actually discovered, which is a question of fact.
In a money recovery case, a loan might have been given in 2015, and later, in 2019, a letter may have been written admitting the debt. Here, the court has to decide legally whether such a letter can extend the limitation period, and factually whether the letter is genuine and valid.
In a service matter, an employee may file a case late and explain the delay by saying that he kept making representations to the department. The court must look into the facts and circumstances to decide whether the delay is reasonable and whether it should be condoned.
Can Limitation Be Decided at the Initial Stage?
Limitation can be decided at the initial stage of a case only when the delay is clearly visible from the case records themselves. However, if deciding the issue of limitation requires examining evidence, hearing witnesses, or assessing explanations for the delay, then the court should not decide it at the threshold stage and must first conduct a proper trial.
Conclusion
Limitation law is important in the justice system, but it should not be applied in a rigid or mechanical way. Courts must look not only at what the law says but also at the actual facts of each case before deciding whether a case is time-barred. Because both legal rules and real-life circumstances are involved, limitation is treated as a question of law and fact, and this balanced approach helps ensure fairness and justice.
