top of page
Question Bank
Question
Explain the fundamental objective and public policy behind the law of limitation as enshrined in statutes. What is the core legal principle that governs it?
Solution
The law of limitation is fundamentally founded on public policy. Its primary objective is to bring certainty and a definitive end to legal disputes, promoting peace and repose. This is encapsulated in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" which means it is for the general welfare that litigation must have a finality. The core principle is that a legal remedy, if not exercised within a fixed, prescribed period, ceases to be available. This law acts as a statute of repose, barring the remedy (though not necessarily the underlying right) after the lapse of a specified time, thereby preventing the indefinite pendency of claims and ensuring that stale or dead matters are not revived.
Question
What is the mandatory provision under the Limitation Act regarding time-barred appeals, and what is the court's obligation when faced with such an appeal?
Solution
Section 3 of the Limitation Act contains the mandatory provision governing time-barred appeals. It stipulates in no uncertain terms that every appeal preferred after the prescribed period "shall be dismissed", even if the opposing party does not raise the defense of limitation. The use of the word "shall" makes the dismissal obligatory and peremptory. This casts a statutory obligation upon the court to dismiss an appeal that is presented beyond the limitation period, subject only to the specific exceptions provided in Sections 4 to 24 of the Act. This provision is considered a substantive law and must be interpreted strictly.
Question
Under what exception can a court admit a time-barred appeal, and what is the critical condition that an appellant must fulfill for this?
Solution
The key exception to the mandatory dismissal of a delayed appeal is provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This section confers discretionary power upon the court to admit an appeal after the expiry of the prescribed period if the appellant can satisfactorily demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within time. The existence of a "sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for invoking this discretionary jurisdiction. The phrase refers to an adequate, genuine, and convincing reason that prevented the appellant from adhering to the statutory timeline, such as circumstances beyond their control, and not mere negligence or lack of diligence.
Question
Describe the judicial approach towards interpreting "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. What are the limits to this liberal approach?
Solution
Courts generally adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach while construing the term "sufficient cause" under Section 5. The intent is to advance substantial justice and ensure that meritorious cases are not thrown out on mere technicalities. However, this liberality has well-defined limits. It cannot be employed to override the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3. The courts cannot condone delay on grounds of sympathy, equity, or hardship alone. If the delay is inordinate, or results from the appellant's negligence, inaction, or want of due diligence, the court must refuse to condone it, regardless of the potential merits of the case. The discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
Question
Is the condonation of delay an automatic right once a "sufficient cause" is shown? Elaborate on the nature of the court's power in this regard?
Solution
No, the condonation of delay is not an automatic right, even if a "sufficient cause" is shown. The power of the court under Section 5 is inherently discretionary. Establishing a "sufficient cause" merely allows the court to consider the application, but it does not compel the court to condone the delay. The court may, in its discretion, refuse to condone the delay based on various factors, including the bona fides of the applicant, the length of the delay, and whether there was a lack of due diligence. This discretion must be exercised in a reasonable, objective, and informed manner, balancing the liberal approach of Section 5 with the strict mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
bottom of page