TEST FIXTURE updated summary
The Limitation Act, 1963 fixes a maximum time within which a person must bring a suit, file an appeal, or make an application to a court, after which the right to that specific remedy is barred. The law exists for practical reasons of fairness and finality: evidence fades, memories become unreliable, and both individuals and institutions need to be able to treat old matters as settled rather than remaining permanently exposed to a claim from years or decades ago. Importantly, expiry of the limitation period bars only the remedy (your ability to sue over it) -- it does not erase the underlying right itself, though in practice an unenforceable right is often of little real value.
As a general rule, the clock starts running from the date your right to sue or to make the application first accrues -- for example, the date a payment fell due, the date possession was taken from you, or the date a decision you wish to appeal was passed. Section 3 of the Act makes the bar of limitation mandatory: a court must dismiss a suit, appeal, or application filed after the prescribed period even if the other side never raises limitation as a defence at all. Courts are expected to check this themselves (suo motu), which is why simply hoping the other side 'forgets' to object is not a safe strategy.
The exact period depends entirely on the type of claim, set out article-by-article in the Act's own Schedule. A few illustrative examples: a suit for money due on a contract, where no more specific article applies, generally has 3 years from when the money becomes due (Article 113); a suit to recover possession of immovable property based on your own title generally has 12 years from when possession was lost (Article 65), extending to 30 years against government-owned property; a civil suit for compensation over libel (written defamation) or slander (spoken defamation) generally has just 1 year from publication (Articles 74 and 75). Appeals typically run on much shorter clocks -- for instance, under the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal from a civil decree to a court other than a High Court generally has 30 days, while an appeal to a High Court generally has 90 days (Article 116); separately, under the Right to Information Act, a first appeal against an official's response must generally be filed within 30 days, and a further, second appeal to the Information Commission within 90 days.
Section 5 allows a court to excuse ('condone') a delay and still hear an appeal, revision, or application filed after its deadline, if the person shows 'sufficient cause' for the delay. This is a genuinely important safety valve -- but it is also commonly misunderstood: Section 5 applies only to appeals, revisions, and applications, and does not apply to an ordinary civil suit at all. If you miss the deadline to file a suit itself, there is generally no equivalent route to ask a court to simply excuse the delay and let you proceed anyway; the suit is dismissed as time-barred. Even where Section 5 does apply, showing 'sufficient cause' does not automatically entitle you to have the delay condoned -- it remains entirely within the court's discretion, and courts have held that the phrase is not elastic enough to excuse very long, unexplained delays.
A few specific, narrow circumstances can affect the running of time. A written acknowledgment of liability, signed by the other side before the original period expires, restarts the clock afresh from the date of that acknowledgment (Section 18) -- but this must be a genuine, express or clearly implied admission in writing, not merely a reply letter or a legal notice you yourself send, which does not reset anything on its own. Separately, if a person entitled to sue was a minor or of unsound mind at the exact time their right to sue first accrued, the law gives them extra time after that condition ends (Section 6) -- but this 'legal disability' provision is narrow: it covers only minority and unsoundness of mind existing at the very start, not general illness, hospitalisation, or being abroad, and once time has already begun running normally, a disability arising afterward does not pause it (Section 9).
This page explains the general framework only. The precise deadline that applies to your own situation -- for a cheque-bounce complaint, a consumer complaint, a motor accident compensation claim, an RTI appeal, or any other specific matter -- is already covered on Aadhrix's own 'Where does this go?' official-route pages, each with its own real, sourced time limit. Because limitation law also depends heavily on the exact facts of when your own right accrued, treat this page as background only, and confirm your specific deadline with an advocate before relying on any general period stated here.
The specific remedy (your ability to sue or apply over it) is barred, and a court must dismiss it even if nobody raises the point -- but for appeals, revisions, and applications (never a plain suit), you can ask the court to condone the delay under Section 5 if you can show a genuine, sufficient reason it happened.
Generally, no. The Act's 'legal disability' provision (Section 6) only covers being a minor or of unsound mind at the exact moment your right to sue first arose -- not a later illness, hospitalisation, or travel abroad. And once time has already started running, a disability that arises afterward does not pause it (Section 9). This is a common misconception worth double-checking with an advocate for your specific facts.
A suit is a full civil lawsuit asking a court to grant you a right or remedy (like recovering money or possession). An application is a narrower request made within or connected to a proceeding -- such as an application for condonation of delay, an execution application, or an appeal. This distinction matters because Section 5's delay-condonation power reaches appeals and applications, but never an ordinary suit.
Not really. Because Section 3 requires a court to apply the limitation bar on its own, treating it as a matter of public policy rather than a private defence either side can simply give up by agreement, a court is expected to dismiss a genuinely time-barred suit even if both parties would rather it proceeded.
No. Only a written acknowledgment of the actual liability, signed by the other side before the original limitation period expires, restarts the clock (Section 18). A demand or legal notice you send yourself does not, by itself, reset anything.
This page covers only the general framework. Aadhrix's own official-route pages for specific situations -- cheque-bounce complaints, consumer complaints, motor accident claims, RTI appeals, and others -- already give the real, sourced deadline that applies to that exact situation.
Governing law: Limitation Act, 1963
Source: Verified against the bare Act text (Sections 3, 5, 6, 9, 18, and Articles 65, 74, 75, 113, 116 on indiankanoon.org and indiacode.nic.in), the Right to Information Act, 2005's own Section 19 text, and multiple cross-checked secondary legal-analysis sources for the practical explanation of each provision. High confidence on the Section 3/5/6/9/18 mechanics and the RTI 30-day/90-day appeal periods. The specific article numbers and period lengths for Articles 65/74/75/113/116 are correctly stated as commonly-applied defaults, but limitation law has many exceptions, extensions (e.g. Section 12's exclusion of time for obtaining a certified copy), and fact-specific accrual questions not covered in a short general explainer -- this is deliberately general education, not a computation for any specific case.
This is general information about published law, not legal advice about your own situation — consider an advocate for that.
Dealing with this yourself?
Track it in your own Aadhrix -- keep the documents, dates, and follow-ups together in one place, free.
Track this in your own Aadhrix