 And as promised by us that we will be taking second session on the parts of the Limitation Act and today's session will be having more emphasis on section 2, 3 and 4 of the Limitation Act. In the previous webinar wherein Justice Katie the Sankaran took us to the introduction of the Limitation Act but now we are taking, we have started taking the sessions as well as on the civil procedure code by Justice Katie Sankaran. This is the brief introduction and then we take the particular sections because each section has its own values in terms of understanding the flow. And therefore those who have missed the previous webinars of Justice Katie Sankaran's where he has shared his knowledge on the Limitation Act as well as civil procedure code. They can like, share, subscribe and comment on the webinar of the YouTube channel of Beyond Law CLC as well as Justice Katie Sankaran's YouTube channel. The entire webinars which we have done by Justice Katie Sankaran as well as other speakers, they are already uploaded on the YouTube channel. Similarly Justice Katie Sankaran's webinars have also been uploaded on his YouTube channel wherein he has taken different parts of sessions and it gives us immense pleasure that the previous two webinars wherein we took on the Limitation Act, the general introduction as well as written statement. They are doing extremely well which only shows the lucid manner in which Justice Katie Sankaran explains his stance which is well received not only by the students of law, lawyers, other professionals coupled with the general counsels, judiciary as well as the judges and the way he takes us to the entire legal position including the judgements is a treat for the years to be understood and to be kept in mind and we are just too blessed to have been acknowledged here by Justice Katie Sankaran. No words can match the in-depthness the participants who are watching us live on the YouTube, Facebook and on this platform feel when they learn from Justice Katie Sankaran. Without taking much time we would request Justice Katie Sankaran to take things forward before that we will just again repeat and we will at the end also say wear mask, maintain social distancing and you can always go out once things become normal but at this time be at home and stay safe. Over to you sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas and once again thank you for providing me an opportunity like this to address the lawyers and students and others. And also I thank the viewers for giving me the support in the webinars. Today we have to deal with the subject limitation act and particularly sections 2, 3 and 4. Introduction we had last time and section 2 we need not go in detail with all the clauses there are clauses A to N definition clauses because by just reading those clauses one can clearly understand what it is and therefore only where I think that some explanation is required I will try to explain it. Definitions say in this act unless the context otherwise requires is the definition unless the context otherwise requires then clause A, B, C, D I am not reading Defender, E, F, E is Man-Foreign Country, Good Faith, H, Good Faith because this expression find a place in different sections. What is the meaning of this? Good faith is defined like this nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention it is in negative form. So and so is not good faith is good faith they do not say the definition does not say it on the other hand it is said in the definition it is not the following is not good faith in that manner it has been done. So nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. Last time I made a request to all of you to have with you a Bayer Act of the Limitation Act because when we explain things it is necessary to know the exact definition or exact usage of the words in the statute. Next I will try clause J period of limitation this is an expression which lawyers and judges use interchangeable what is period of limitation and prescribed period. So we say the prescribed period under the limitation act is three years it is wrong it is the period of limitation suppose in the particular column in the schedule the period of limitation is there the time from which the period begins to rat is also provided so that second column the period of limitation it is that period of limitation which is defined and prescribed period is also defined. But when we say when we argue cases when we talk in the legal sessions and all those things we say the prescribed period in the limitation act is three years for this type of suit which is wrong which expression is wrong we are not expected to use those words interchanging it has got specific meaning what is that meaning period of limitation means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit appeal or application by the schedule. So period of limitation is that period which is shown in the second column of the schedule as against that particular article and what is prescribed period prescribed period means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this act. A computation of the period of limitation is required for example section 12.1 which says that the day on which the cause of action arises shall be excluded. So if a promissory note is a suit is to be filed based on a promise 11 2018 is the date of promissory note when we calculate and compute three years period it will end on 11 2021 why the cause that 1st January 2018 shall be excluded going by the what is defined what is stated in section 12.1 which says that the frustration be excluded in computing the period of limitation for a suit appeal or application the day from which such period is to be record shall be excluded. Likewise I said last time that there are exclusions, exemptions, extension and no time running and no limitation at all various things and 4 to 24 of the limitation act deal with it 4 to 24 so on the base of the on the base of the computation under 4 to 24 you will get a particular period that is the prescribed suppose 11 2018 is the date of promissory note 11 2021 is the last date for filing it say if for example it is not promissory note any other date say for example in appeal in appeal the period of limitation to the high court normally is 90 days 90 days we compute we get 90 days 10th January 2021 suppose the time required because required for obtaining copy of the judgment and decree are is excluded you will get not 10th January sometimes you may get 25th January so what is a prescribed period period of limitation is 90 days what is a prescribed period what do you get after computation the notice under section 18 shall be excluded or the time required for obtaining sanction or leave from any authority that is to be excluded likewise several things are to be excluded under the various versions of the limitation act running from sections 4 to 24 and taking into account all these things the computation shall be made and after computation what you get is the prescribed the prescribed period means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this act so hereafter dear friends what I propose to say is that we the lawyers and we the low men are not expected to use the expression period of limitation and prescribed period interchangeably next definition clause L suit suit does not include an appeal or an application because when you see the CPC suit expression suit is there for example order 22 death marriage and insolvency of parties when a plaintiff dies when the defendant dies that applies to the appellant and respond so the suit takes in the appeal also because the various provisions tell that but here in the limitation act when an expression suit is made it applies only to suits and not to appeals or applications that is why this definition suits does not include an appeal or application for example section 5 of the limitation act section 5 the expression is any appeal or any application other than an application under any of the provisions of order 21 of the coders that extension of the period condonational delay applies but not to suits and applications for execution because it is excluded so whenever an expression is used suit appeal or application in the limitation act it means only that there are as I said there are there are last time there are three categories of cases coming under the limitation act suits appeals and applications and each one is quite different and when an expression appeal is used it applies to only two appeals so please that is a matter to be noted now shall we go to section three section three is very important we will read section three one without reading any explanation any lecture would not be sufficient subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 inclusive so this is subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 not all whichever is applicable suppose section 6 is applicable or suppose section 12 is applicable then that whatever section in section 4 to 24 which applies to the particular situation it is subject to that subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 every suit instituted appeal preferred and application made see the wording suit institute suit is always institute appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defense even if the period even if limitation is not set up as a defense if the suit is clearly barred the court is bound suit appeal or application if it is barred by limitation the court is bound to dismiss it even if the defendant does not appear before court he remains ex parte the suit suppose the suit is filed say in respect of a cost of action which arose on 11 2015 the period of limitation is three years so the suit is filed beyond 11 2018 it is clear from the date of play it is clear from the governments the plane that the cost of action arose on 11 2015 therefore without the aid of any other evidence without any argument from the governments in the plane themselves it is clear that suit is barred then the defendant need not plead in such cases to say that the suit is barred by limitation you have not raised that contention is not an answer if the governments in the plane show on the face of it that the suit is barred it is the duty of the court to dismiss that suit appeal or application as the case may be even though the defendant has not raised such appeal there are circumstances where it is necessary for the defendant to plead and prove certain things limitation also applies to some extent in respect of that which we will explain later so we will stop here and then we will see what are some of the decided cases so that that position will be clear what is this an obligation is cast upon the court by section 3 to dismiss a suit appeal or application if it is barred by limitation though limitation is not pleaded in the written statement the suit is liable to be dismissed if it is barred by limitation a year 1970 Supreme Court 716 a year 1970 70 Supreme Court 716 and subject to the provisions containing 4 to 24 it does not mean that all the provisions of section 4 to 24 will be attracted in every case whichever is applicable that is apply for example as I pointed out section 5 is not applicable to suits so when we say 4 to 24 section 5 does not apply to suits so whichever is applicable in the particular situation that applies and then section 3 of the limitation act in section 151 CPC it is held that for invoking the inherent power of the court under section 151 no period of limitation is involved and section 3 of the limitation act is not attracted to such application you may see LS synthetics limited case which I cited last time for some other purpose LS synthetics limited versus fair growth financial services limited a year 2005 Supreme Court 1209 paragraph 33 and it is held that the provisions of the limitation are not applicable to proceedings before bodies other than courts and to quasi judicial tribunal and executive authority example etc etc as for example this is important for our purpose section 150 as for example there is no bar of limitation for initiation of a final degree proceedings in a suit for partition or to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under section 151 of the CPC or for correction of an accidental slip or omission in judgments orders or decrees that is section 152 CPC the reason being that these powers can be exercised even so motor by the court and does no question of any limitation analysis so we have to make a distinction the court shall dismiss there are certain cases where section 151 of the CPC may apply for which there is no period of limitation for example an application for passing a final degree in a suit for partition no period of limitation is provided after the preliminary degree is passed final degree is only an invitation to the court an invitation to the court is invited to pass a final degree in respect of a preliminary degree which is already passed then section 3 applies to courts I said that is a lesson that takes place also 2004 I said 2005 Supreme Court 1209 parallel citation is 2004 11 SCC 11 SCC 456 then if this is important what I am going to say is important I will read a short parallel very short when the question of limitation is purely one of law capable of determination on the facts admitted or proved before the court is bound to raise the question of question so motor and decide but where the question of limitation raises issues of facts not arising from the plane the defendant is bound under order 8 rule to CPC to raise such question in his return statement however if the facts proved or admitted show that the suit or other proceeding does not seem to be bar the court is not bound to raise the question of limitation because it is not bound to speculate upon possible questions of limitation so this duty cast on the court that the court shall dismiss even though limitation is not taken as a ground of defense applies only to cases where the plane discloses or the admitted or proved facts disclose that the suit is bound otherwise not for example when a contention is raised by the defendant when a contention is raised by the plate that though the date of the instrument or document or any other data on which the cost of action arises is a particular date and though the period of limitation namely three years have expired as expired still the suit is not barred because there is an acknowledgement at the meaning of section 18 before the date of expiry of the period of limitation so that is a matter to be proved suppose the defendant says that acknowledgement is not valid it is not said signed by him it is a fabricated one that is a matter to be proved by the plaintiff in order to enable him to make the suit within the period of limitation so sometimes certain facts are necessary to be proved certain facts are to be proved by the plaintiff to enable the benefit of exception from limitation for example this payment part paid a suit is filed for 10 lakhs it is on the face of it barred by limitation but the plaintiff says before the expiry of the period of limitation a part of the amount has been paid by the defendant and it has been made noted on the instrument document which evidences the transaction then if that is disputed it is for the plaintiff to prove that in such circumstances it is a matter for prove or the plaintiff the evidence in the plaintiff does not do not disclose that the suit is barred something is to be proved in the case some contentions are to be raised by the defendant in which case it is for the defendant to raise it and the court may not speculate on all those things you may note 2005 6 SCC 614 2005 6 SCC 614 name of the case is Narnay Ramamurthy Narnay Ramamurthy versus Raula Somasundaram paragraph 5 when limitation is pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that the suit is barred by limitation then of course it is a duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea however in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded and issue waste and then prove what are the other provisions in the CPC which are 11 by conserving section 3 please note plain order 7 rule 6 I will just go on reading order 7 rule 6 order 7 rule 11 D then written statement order 8 rule 2 order 8 rule 2 set off order 8 rule 6 counter claim order 8 rule 6 8 to 6 G 6 A to 6 G presentation of appeal order 41 rules 1 and 3 these provisions in the CPC are also connected with the various interpretations which may arise while conserving section 3 now let us see the other subsections of section 3 for the purpose of this act a suit is instituted in the ordinary case when the plaint is presented to the proper officer no dispute over it there is no complication over it by just reading we can understand in the case of a proper that is indigenous order 33 and order 44 order 33 for suits order 44 appeals in the case of a proper when the application for leave to sue as a proper is made in the case of a claim against a company which is being bound up by the court then the claim and first sense in his claim sense in his claim to the official liquidator so along with this in the case of proper an explanation is required in the case of proper please see also section 13 of the limitation section 13 6 13 exclusion of time in cases where leave to sue or appeal as a proper is applied for in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit appeal or a suit or appeal in any case when its application for leave to sue or appeal as a proper has been made and rejected that application has been filed but rejected the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting in good faith his application for such leave shall be excluded and the court may on payment of the court see prescribed for such suit or appeal treat the suit or appeal as having the same force and effect as if the court has been paid in the first instance so this period an application has been made to allow the plaintiff to file the suit as a proper as an indigent person under order 33 notice was issued parties were heard and that application was dismissed on some ground either it is not the there is no disclosure of the assets by the plaintiff or because he is not a proper or when it is proved by the government or by the defendant that he is having enough resources to pay the property and therefore he does not satisfy the expression indigent person in many cases many many circumstances may arise where the application for allowing the plaintiff to file the suit as a proper may get rejected in which case suppose the suit last take for filing the suit is 2120 just a few days before that this was fine it is it is well settled that no court will ask why did you wait till this moment because it is the right of the party to wait till the last day of limitation so before the expiry of the period of limitation the suit was filed the suit was an application was filed under order 33 cc for leave to file the suit as an indigent person that it took six months time to dispose of that application and that application is rejected next day he pays the court fee then on payment of the court fee it relates back and the suit shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the application for suing as a proper has been laid before so by relating this back because if the suit is filed on the date on which the application is rejected it is barred by time the first suit is filed it is barred by time only when that application is dismissed the court grants time or does not grant time immediately after rejection the court fees paid it shall relate back to the date on which the application to file the suit as a proper has been made so that is a protection which is contained in section 13 of the limitation along with this we have to see rule 15 capital A of order 33 cpc rule 15 a of order 30 what does it say grand of time for payment of court here 13 said the time during which a person was prosecuting his application in good faith shall be excluded not beyond that not beyond that suppose the application is rejected on a particular date and immediately he pays the court fee then it is all right then it will relate back to the date on which the application was filed suppose he pays the court fee after a period of two weeks then there is no question of exclusion from that time suppose the suit is filed on the last day of limitation and an application is filed to sue as a proper that application is rejected then he took 15 days or 30 days to pay the court fee court will not exclude that time unless rule 15 a of order 33 applies what is rule 15 here for that nothing contained in rules 5 7 or 15 shall prevent a court while rejecting an application under rule 5 or refusing an application under rule 7 different circumstances from granting time to the applicant to pay the requisite court fee within such time as may be fixed by the court or extended by from time to time and upon such payment and on payment of the costs referred to in rule 15 within time the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the application for permission to sue as an individual person was presented so this is an extension for the off section 13 of the limitation section 3 says that in the case of a proper when his application for leave to as a proper is made that is the date for the purpose of this ad a suit is instituted true then it took six months or nine months to dispose of that application and what about that period by this deeming fiction it relates back but not always section 13 that application section 13 also should be there when 13 is applied the period during which he was prosecuting in good faith it is not simply filing it it must be filed in good faith then the court is satisfied that it was filed and prosecuted good faith the period during which that application was pending in court shall be excluded not further not beyond that beyond that rule 15 a of order that in receipt is where the court grants time or grants time and then further extends from five to time and if that court he is paid within time then it will relate back to the date on fixed application for filing the suit as a proper has been made so the position is very clear all these provisions are now next clause b any claim by way of set off or counter claim shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted here there is it is tricky please see any claim by way of set off or counter shall be treated as a separate suit that we know and shall be deemed to have been instituted in the case of a set off on the same date as the suit in which the set off is played in the case of a counter claim on the date on which the counter claim is made what is the meaning of this meaning of disease see I am the defendant in the suit you file the suit against I am the defendant I am entitled to plead set off if I am entitled to plead set off I am also entitled to file a suit with respect to that set off suppose there are series of transactions between us we fill in the same character and the requirement of leading a set off are satisfied money claim you file the suit for 10 legs 10 legs I am entitled to get 25,000 from you there are series of transactions I don't want to disturb the relation and file a suit for 25,000 but within the period of limitation you file your suit for 10 legs and by that time when I risk by the time I received the summons in the suit my period of limitation for filing the set off is over what shall I do if I after receiving the summons I file the set off it shall be deemed that the set off has been made the limitation will be computed with reference to the date on which the suit is filed so if on the date of filing of the suit my claim of set off is not barred it is not barred not understanding that return statement is filed three months or four months beyond the period of limitation only thing is then the return statement is filed with the type as provided under law and if it is filed it shall be deemed that the set off has been pleaded and that set off will relate back to the date on which the suit is filed so if on the date of filing of the suit it is not barred the set off is not barred a suit for claiming that amount under the set off is not barred then that set off is not barred but so far as a counter claim is concerned it is different counter claim shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the counter claim is made in court so if a counter claim is barred on the date of filing the return statement then it is barred counter claim can be in respect of a cause of action which has arisen even after filing the suit but before the date fixed for filing which we have seen under order 8268 in the case of a counter claim on the date on which the counter claim is made an application by notice of motion the I court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer so this is what is section 3 now I would refer to some decided cases that court shall be bound to dismiss this applies to the apparent court also if a suit is filed the defendant did not raise the plea of limitation but on the face of the plane the suit is barred going by section 3 1 it is a duty of the court to dismiss the suit but the suit was decreed then the defendant's defendant files an appeal though he was exporter exporter degree also an appeal lies under section 96 of CPC so he files an appeal he satisfies the appellate court that on the face of the plane the suit is barred so that duty which is cast on the trial court applies equally to the appellate court as well if the question of limitation is capable of being decided on the affected facts of food facts the respondent in the appeal is even entitled to contend before the appellate court that the suit was barred by limitation please see a year 1969 supreme court 1969 supreme court 1335 name of the case is town municipal council atthani town municipal council atthani versus presiding officer labor com so many points are decided under the industrial disputes act but this question also arises next is 2000 same point 2016 volume 14 SCC 2016 volume 14 SCC 761 761 name of the case is state of gujarat versus measures pottery associates failure of the trial court to consider the issue in such a case a duty was cast on the court to consider that aspect of law even on its own initiative and since it failed to do so the appellate state was competent to raise the legal question in appeal or indeed even in any successive appeal even in any successive appeal even though the defendant did not appear did not find a different statement provided it is clear from the governments in the plane and the admitted fans that the suit is barred by limitation now suppose a decrease passed in a suit which is barred by limitation suit is clearly barred by limitation i am the defendant in the suit anybody who looks at the plane can see that the suit is barred by limitation nevertheless the court decrease it i did not appear before court i believed that the court will do justice court is manned by learned persons therefore i need not rush to the court and file the written statement and plead and all those things i believed in the court i did not go to the court i did not file a written statement but on the governments in the plane it is clearly barred and still a decrease passed by the court when it is put in execution i raise a condensation that the decrease in aliqui because it is barred by limitation the question which i am putting is whether such a condensation can be raised before answering that question it is a settled legal principle right from 1950s up to date that the inviolability of a decree can be set up whenever and wherever it is raised even in execution or in collateral proceedings even in 2021 decision of the supreme court this principle is felt sitting so that a decrease void it was not condensation condended that the court has no jurisdiction no condensation was raised defendant did not go to the court passed an expati decree but still it is clear that the court which passed the decree has no jurisdiction no jurisdiction over the subject matter i am not saying about territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction which can be waived but jurisdiction over the subject matter a suit is decreed against a minor who was not represented by a guardian or an insane person who was not represented by a guardian a suit was decreed against a dead man on the party array all these are instances where the decrease in aliqui which inviolability can be set up whenever and wherever it is raised and when it is executed even in execution or in collateral that is a well settled principle now let us see whether this decree which is passed in a suit which is banned by limitation whether it is an ality answer is no the court has jurisdiction true section 3 says that if it is clear from the plane on the admitted or proved facts then the suit is banned by limitation which is a due to the court to dismiss it nevertheless it decreed it even then the decree does not become null and void see a citation a year 1964 supreme court a year 1964 supreme court 907 four judges itevara matai versus itevara matai versus worki worki then also it is relied on by three judges in a year 2019 supreme court 2019 supreme court 5125 nosli neville vadia nosli neville vadia versus our ivory properties then next 2005 6 a cc 614 two judges narnay ramamurthy which i have already cited today narnay ramamurthy versus soma sundar and it is also held in 2019 supreme court which i cited limitation i am except question of flow and fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue that point is also decided so that it can be made use of for you as lawyers now set off and counterclaim which i said please also note a year 1987 supreme court 1395 a year 1987 supreme court 1395 supreme court held that a counterclaim which is treated as a cross suit can be preferred before the time limited by the limitation act for firing the suit on the same cost of action expects and the defendant could prefer the counterclaim even after firing the original written statement the only limitation is that the claim on the date of it was not barred by limitation and also 2020 22 a cc 2020 to a cc 394 now i think we can go to section destroyed does not destroy the right i said last time yes now we go to section 4 what is section 4 section 4 says expiry the period prescribed period when the court is closed see the expression prescribed period expiry of prescribed period when court is closed when the prescribed period for any suit appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed the suit appeal or application may be instituted preferred or made on the day on which the court reopens explanation a court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on the day on that day this section is based on the principle expression on the maximum i'm sorry on the maximum let's in the x non-caudate c o g i t and impossibility that is the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform another maxim act as curiae nemenam gravabit that is very quite familiar to all of us an act of court shall not prejudice anyone court is closed so today is the last day of limitation for filing the suit by me i have got limitation till today i can wait till today nobody will question me today the court is closed either because a local holiday holiday was declared by the collector or by the government it was a working day but a local holiday was declared because of certain circumstances some dignitary passed away or something like therefore i could not file it next day is saturday and sunday non-working days then one day i can file it on monday and the suit is not barred because the court is closed even a part of the working day suppose after lunch the suit the a court is closed then it can be suppose a suit can be filed either in court x or in court y there are certain such cases where the the suit for several properties are the one item of property is in one district and another item of property is within the jurisdiction of another court in the same district or another district so the suit can be filed either here x court or y court x court a holiday was declared local holiday was declared and therefore x court is remains closed on that day but y court was functioning but i file it in on x court itself on the next day then the other side raises a condention you could have filed it in y court y court was functioning then why you why you did not file it in y court and therefore your suit in x court is barred no it is my property question is whether the court having jurisdiction is closed or not x court has jurisdiction y court has also jurisdiction it is my preference plainest preference so i prefer x court is a holiday then but x court is a holiday i cannot file it on the next day in y court and claim the venue which i am not entitled to yes section four apply to suits appeals and applications civil or criminal it applies to criminal case also it does not extend the period of limitation but only excludes that period and if two courts have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the suit and one of them is closed the plaintiff is competent to file the suit on the next reopening day the fact that the other court to which he could have filed the suit was open on that day is not at all material in computing the period of limitation on court on the court where the suit was actually filed this is a case it is a kerala case i l r 1965 i l r 1965 one kerala one four three sumramanaya versus lexmi amal and if the plaintiff's title to the property is to be extinguished on the expiry of the period of 12 years applying section 27 of the limitation and that date happens to be a sunday period of two years expires adverse possession sets in and the period provided in the article 65 the limitation act is over section 27 says that the right itself will get extinguished that right got extinguished on sunday is a holiday suit is filed on the next day the condention by the defendant is that the right is extinguished under section 27 it is no matter whether the court is closed no matter whether it is a prescribed period ends no matter whether that exclusion is possible or not it is not section four applies and if the period of 12 years expires on a sunday or a holiday then on the next date can be filed section four applies then there is a there is a case which is reported in it is a kerala decision that is relied on relying on a bombay decision that may be helpful to you i may say that um another in supreme court judgment 2010 5 scc 2010 5 scc 459 2010 5 scc 459 supreme court two judges oriental aroma chemical industries limited versus gujarat industrial development corporation oriental aroma chemicals industries limited versus gujarat industrial development corporation and another law of limitation is founded on public policy etc paragraph 8 um sufficient costs i'm sorry i uh i committed a mistake that is in section 3 section 4 a year 2016 supreme court 3 2 8 4 ajegutta versus raju alias rajendra singh yadam joseph by justice roenton the remand and justice courier joseph detailed discussion paragraph 3 4 and 6 if section 4 applies court is closed it can be extended but not otherwise a beautiful discussion is there in paragraph 3 4 5 and 6 7 hours minus 7 hours then justice five scoria course of kerala high court uh it is reported in 2005 k hc kerala high court cases 70 70 kerala lot times also it is reported 2005 one klt 434 what is that case and also along with that please also note a year 1979 bombay 14 that bombay decision was followed by the kerala what is this a a property was sold in pot auction the uh 25 percent of the amount should be deposited then and there the balance should be deposited within 15 days if it is not there the sale will go on the date on which the deposit is to be made there was a strike by the employees of the government NGOs non-deserted officers throughout the state of kerala and it went on for more than 30 days no deposit could be made and therefore the sale could not be confirmed deposit was made on the next day when the strike was recalled next day and it was conducted that the deposit was within time it was opposed and it was argued before the high court that that the employees were on strike does not mean that the court was closed it is true that the working of the court was paralyzed but does not mean that the court is closed and therefore section 4 cannot be applied that was the argument that argument was repelled relying on the bombay decision which i have referred to exactly on the point that when there was a strike it is practically impossible for making the deposit this is what is held i adopt the reasoning of the bombay high court in drama that is what is said the court noticed that the sale was conducted on a day immediately preceding the commencement of the strike and the strike was over on such and such state which was succeeded by so and so a second Saturday and Sunday etc and therefore it was held that the deposit made on the next day after recalling the strike was good and the deposit was made within time and the sale was liable to be confirmed bombay then another decision to supreme court a year 1996 supreme court seven nine six this is a very important case please see discussion paragraph 14 15 the paragraph 13 14 and 15 manohar joshi versus manohar joshi versus nithin barua pati that is manohar joshi was the chief minister of marashan election case question was whether the representation of people act is an exhaustive court and whether limitation act applies it was held that it is an exhaustive court but what about section 10 of the general clause and general clause act was applied the period of limitation provided under the representation of people act expired on a day which is a holiday court is closed so the election petition was filed on the next day question was whether within the period of limitation the supreme court applied section 10 of the general clause act and held that the election petition was with time see the detailed discussion paragraph 13 14 and 15 then another decision a year 1973 supreme court 313 decision by judgment by justice keke mati three judges very strict view was taken by the supreme court a suit was filed before a particular court then it was transferred to another court then that court returned the plane that a railway with respect to railway incident damages was played then it was held that no no this court has no jurisdiction jurisdiction lies in some other then it was filed in that court and the time spent before the two courts was sought to be excluded by saying that section four should be applied supreme court said section four does not apply section four does not apply you chose a court which is not having jurisdiction territory of course and section four does not apply to that section 14 may apply and if that appeal was heard by the supreme court today so motto the supreme court would apply section 14 and condone the delay but at that time that was in 1973 what was so strict and it was held that section four does not apply and it was dismissed and it was held that the suit is filed by the if it is now 2021 supreme court would have allowed it not under section four but under section 14 yes please read that judgment paragraph detail the discussion very detail I will refer to the paragraphs paragraph four five eight eight with that I think I have to some extent covered the requirement of this webinar and exactly one hour yes thank you very much next time with another section next time we may take sections five six seven and eight together nine and take all these things can be covered we can some people had asked that we should take a session on continuous wrong and what is the one time pause of action we will discuss it after the webinar because next session would be on a seven procedure court because they are alternatively taking it ah ctc which topic we will take it we will see as to what questions are coming and thank you to all the friends who have been posting the judgments which uh just as katie central was referring during his webinar I just look because of the group we don't have any question as to whether we have on the Facebook actually in fact you explain in a lucid manner that people don't just post much questions yes there's one sir if any cause of action hasn't occurred and has been continuously for example in money recovery suit etc can section 113 be applicable here for filing recovery suits I did not understand the question he says sir if any cause of action doesn't occur and have been continuing for example in a money recovery suit can section 113 I have also not been able to understand 113 of which section which act it is again silent 113 article any suit for which no period of limitation is prescribed it is three years when they write to sue across so that question there is something wrong with that it should be 130 only desert and the v jurisdiction issue if not raised before the first court can't be allowed to be raised afterwards but you said limitations can be raised in an appeal yes provided provided it is clear from the admitted or two facts or on the face of the plate and it is a question of that then even if it is not raised it can be raised in appeal and as supreme court held successive appeals limitation in the partition suit when the plaintiff has sold the property to his elder brother and now raised the fraud after a period of 23 years now the only question is whether there is any endurance position otherwise not that is the principle of endurance position is that article 65 which we will deal with very elaborate article 64 and 65 are the most important article when we come to the practical situations almost every suit on the civil side either this contention of endurance position and limitation is being raised or some other contention barring except to that the other articles not constantly applicable but in almost at least 25 percent of the suits this article 64 and 65 may apply therefore we will concentrate on that but immediately I may say article 65 which provides for a title suit the period of limitation is 12 years and it starts from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes a duels that is quite different from the the limitation act before 1963 1908 1908 there it was the plaintiff was bound in every suit to prove that he was possession within 12 years so the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove that his possession he continued in possession within 12 years but now after the 1963 act the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that when his endurance possession commenced and if 12 years expired endurance possession sits in and then section 27 also will apply. Question has been posted by Shobha but we will not take because it is not of the limitation act Rohit says what about an appeal in a tribunal where relevant law provides that the limitation act is applicable wherein online appeal as well as physical appeals are allowed and on the last date the court is closed and then on the next working day online appeal is filed whether condonation under section 4 would be given or not. Yes it will be given it is not exactly condonation but it is exclusion and the petition filed on the next day is good because the special statute says that limitation act is applicable limitation act would apply even if it is not set in the special statute provided it is a court if it is a tribunal or quasi judicial authority there must be some indication the special statute that the limitation act will apply. So here for the question it is clear that the special statute provides that the limitation act will apply in which case section 4 also will apply and it is filed on a last day is on a date which is court is closed filed on the next day whether online or directly it is well within time. Is limitation a mixed question of law and fact? It is a it is a question of law it is a mixed question of law and fact it is a pure question of law and pure question of fact also sometimes depends if it is a mixed question of law and fact it cannot be raised as a preliminary ground order 14 rule 2 CPC says which are all cases where it can be raised as a preliminary there it says that there are two clauses A and B which says that if it is a pure question of law 2 and also it affects the jurisdiction of the law these parameters are satisfied can be decided as a preliminary issue. So if a question of limitation if it is a pure question of law it can be raised as a preliminary issue and it can be decided on the other hand if it is a mixed question of law and fact then it is a matter to be tried. Can a decree be executed through another leaf of declaration in a counterclaim where decree was barred by limitation? I did not get it get the question. I also feel it's not very happily voted. It says can a decree be executed through another leaf of declaration in a counterclaim where decree was barred by limitation? I do not understand because that's what I'm saying ultimately the decree whatever decree flows that only can be given and that's the law is right or wrong whatever the judgment is it has to be binding at least in to see the parties that is way back from 67 Supreme Court state of Pihar versus Sonawai. So thank you sir and to for giving an enlightening session we will tie up for the next session and to all the friends who have been watching us live we are thankful that you have been encouraging us but one of the intentions of this webinars are that we should keep on learning the knowledge and it is another mode that we continue to remain at home and that is the best way of safety. So the knowledge is on the virtual platform is acting as a safety wall for all persons who are watching us and to the entire family because and again we would say that those who want to watch the previous webinars they should like subscribe and comment upon the videos of the YouTube channel of Justice Katie Sankaran as well as Beyond Law CLC. We are honored by the fact that you are encouraging us and tomorrow we will take a session on offer and acceptance on Indian contract act by a well-known lawyer of Karnataka that is by Sikandant Kumar. So tomorrow join us at 6 30 p.m. everyone stay safe, stay blessed and thank you sir once again. Your health and prosperity is paramount and it's amountable for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. So shall I leave