1. Ravi lent his car to his friend, Suresh, on 10.02.2018.

Suresh refused to return it,

claiming it as his own. Ravi was hospitalized due to an accident on 01.04.2020 and
remained in a coma until he passed away on 10.10.2021. Ravi's daughter, Neha, wishes
to file a suit for recovery of the car on 15.12.2023. Is Neha’s suit barred by limitation?
To determine if Neha’s suit for recovery of the car is barred by limitation, we need to
consider the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act.

•The cause of action for recovery of the car arose on 10.02.2018 when Suresh refused to
return it and claimed it as his own [Implied].

•Ravi was hospitalized and in a coma from 01.04.2020 to 10.10.2021 [Query].

•Neha wishes to file the suit on 15.12.2023 [Query].

The concept of the 'prescribed period' for legal actions and state that suits instituted after this
period shall be dismissed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. The court can even take up
the issue of limitation suo motu.
Section 6 to 9 of the Limitation Act deals with the effect of legal disability. Section 6 states
that if a person is suffering from a legal disability at the time from which the prescribed
period is to be reckoned, the time during which the disability continues shall be excluded.
there is a 3-year period after the disability ceases.
However, Section 9 states that once the time for a suit has begun to run, no subsequent
disability can stop it. The disability, in this case, Ravi's coma, commenced on 01.04.2020,
which is after the cause of action (10.02.2018) had already arisen and the limitation period
had started running.
Assuming the limitation period for a suit for the recovery of movable property is three years
(this is a general provision of the Limitation Act , so it's outside the provided material, and
you may want to independently verify this), the initial limitation period would have started on
10.02.2018 and expired on 09.02.2021.
Since Ravi's coma began after the limitation period had started to run, Section 9 of the
Limitation Act would apply, and the subsequent disability would not stop the limitation
period. Therefore, the original limitation period expired on 09.02.2021.
Neha wishes to file the suit on 15.12.2023, which is after the expiry of the three-year
limitation period calculated from the date the cause of action arose.
Therefore, Neha’s suit is likely barred by limitation as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act,
and the subsequent disability of Ravi does not extend the period due to Section 9.

2. An order was passed in favour of Tarun against Ramesh in WP No. 150/2002 by the
Single Judge of the High Court, Jaipur, on 12.04.2019. Ramesh prefers a writ appeal to
the Division Bench of the High Court on 15.05.2019. He points out that 13-05-2019 was
a Saturday and a non-working day for the High Court and 14-05-2019 was a Sunday
and thus he has filed on 15-05-2019. Would the appeal be within time?
To determine if Ramesh’s writ appeal filed on 15.05.2019 is within time, we need to consider
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the expiry of the prescribed period when
the court is closed.

•The order was passed in favour of Tarun on 12.04.2019 [Query].

•Ramesh prefers the writ appeal on 15.05.2019 [Query].

•Ramesh claims 13-05-2019 (Saturday) and 14-05-2019 (Sunday) were non-working days for
the High Court [Query].
The prescribed period for filing a writ appeal is 30 days from the date of the order and you
should verify the actual limitation period.
If the prescribed period is 30 days from 12.04.2019, it would expire on 12.05.2019.
According to Ramesh, the following days occurred around the potential expiry date:

•12.05.2019: Sunday (Court closed)

•13.05.2019: Saturday (Non-working day for the High Court, as per Ramesh)
•14.05.2019: Sunday (Court closed)
•15.05.2019: Wednesday (Date of filing)

Section 4 of the Limitation Act states that if 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 that the court re-opens.
If the 30-day period expired on Sunday, 12.05.2019, which is a day the court was closed, the
limitation would extend to the next day the court re-opened. If Saturday, 13.05.2019, was
indeed a non-working day for the High Court, and Sunday, 14.05.2019, was also a holiday,
then the court would have re-opened on Monday, 15.05.2019.
However, Ramesh filed the appeal on 15.05.2019 (Wednesday, if we consider Monday and
Tuesday as working days after the weekend). If both Saturday and Sunday were non-
working, then the first working day after Sunday, 12.05.2019, would be Monday, 13.05.2019.
If Ramesh's assertion about Saturday being non-working is accurate, and Sunday was also
non-working, then the period expiring on Sunday (12th) would extend to the next working
day, which would be Monday (13th). Filing on Wednesday (15th) would then be beyond this
extended period.
Let's re-evaluate assuming the 30th day falls on Sunday. The court was closed on Sunday. If
Saturday was also a non-working day, then the court would have reopened on Monday.
Therefore, the appeal should have been filed on Monday, 13.05.2019, to be within time as per
Section 4. Filing on Wednesday, 15.05.2019, would be late unless there was a holiday on
Monday or Tuesday that Ramesh has not mentioned, or if the prescribed limitation period
was longer than 30 days.
a 30-day limitation period, Ramesh that Saturday (13-05-2019) and Sunday (14-05-2019)
were non-working days after the initial 30-day period expired on Sunday (12-05-2019), the
appeal filed on Wednesday (15-05-2019) would likely be time-barred under Section 4 of the
Limitation Act, as the appeal should have been filed on the first day the court reopened after
the weekend following the expiry date. However, this depends on the accuracy of Ramesh's
claim about Saturday being a non-working day and the actual prescribed period for filing a
writ appeal.

Q3. A & A Partners is a partnership firm that entered into a contract with one Amina.
The contract was allegedly breached on 02-02-2021. Amina filed a suit for breach of
contract and damages at Bengaluru City Civil Court on 02-01-2022. However, this suit
was filed against Mr. Aakash, one of the alleged partners of the firm. On 03-05-2024,
Amina wants to add Varun, and substitute him for the existing defendant Amina- on the
ground that she was mistaken as to who the real partner was. How might the question
of limitation be decided?

The question of limitation regarding the addition and substitution of Varun as a defendant
will likely be decided based on Section 21 of the Limitation Act. This section explicitly deals
with the effect of adding a new party to a suit and states that limitation starts when the new
party is added.
In this scenario, the contract was allegedly breached on 02-02-2021 [Query]. Amina filed the
suit against Mr. Aakash on 02-01-2022 [Query]. The proposal to add and substitute Varun for
the existing defendant (who is incorrectly referred to as 'Amina' in your query, assuming it
should be 'Aakash') occurred on 03-05-2024 [Query].
However, it is mentioned that the prescribed period of limitation is a key concept.
According to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, if Varun is added as a defendant on 03-05-
2024, the suit against him would be deemed to have been instituted on that date. To
determine if this is within the limitation period, we would need to know the prescribed period
for such a suit, calculated from the date the cause of action arose (02-02-2021).
the court can take up the issue of limitation suo motu under Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
Furthermore, only one article applies to a case, the more specific one overrides, and the court
prefers the one that keeps the suit alive, looking at the substance of the plaint. In this case,
Section 21 is the specific provision concerning the addition of parties.
Therefore, the crucial factor in determining the limitation against Varun will be whether the
prescribed period for a suit for breach of contract and damages, calculated from 02-02-2021,
has expired by 03-05-2024. If the prescribed period has expired, then the suit against Varun,
initiated on his addition as a party, would likely be barred by limitation under Section 21 of
the Limitation Act.

Q4. Ramnath, the kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family, had entered into an Agreement
to purchase 3 acres of land in Nagarbhavi Village, Bangalore Rural District with the
owner one Mrs Sharmila on 23-01-2012, on behalf of the joint family. He had further
paid Rs. 3 crores on the same date towards the advance consideration with the
agreement that the balance of Rs. 1 crore would be payable on the date of registration,
within 6 months from the date of the initial agreement. However, even though Ramnath
expressed his readiness by offering the balance on 28-05-2012, Mrs Sharmila refused to
receive the said sum and sought a higher sum- and further refused to execute registered
sale deed to the purchaser. Ramnath’s youngest brother Shyam was only 5 years old at
the time of the agreement and has only now attained majority on 23-03-2025. Shyam
has approached you and sought your advice as to whether he could now file a suit for
specific performance against Mrs Sharmila, since he was admittedly a minor
coparcener in 2012 and has only now attained majority. When did the prescribed
period expire for Shyam?

Shyam’s Suit for Specific Performance

To determine when the prescribed period expired for Shyam to file a suit for specific
performance, we need to consider the date the cause of action arose and the effect of his
minority.
The Agreement to purchase was entered into on 23-01-2012 [Query]. The cause of action for
specific performance arose on 28-05-2012 [Query], when Mrs. Sharmila refused to accept the
balance consideration and refused to execute the sale deed.
Generally, the Limitation Act has provisions to protect the interests of minors by extending
the period of limitation until after they attain majority. However, without those specific
provisions we can only note that Shyam's minority at the time the cause of action arose
(2012) and his recent attainment of majority on 23-03-2025 [Query] would be crucial factors
in determining whether his suit for specific performance is within the prescribed period of
limitation.
To provide a complete answer on when the prescribed period would expire for Shyam, it
would be necessary to consult the specific provisions of the Limitation Act regarding the
effect of disability (like minority) on the limitation period.

Q5. Describe the difference between the extinguishment of a remedy and acquisition of a
right due to the passage of time by reference to relevant provisions of the Limitation Act,
1963, and case-law.

The extinguishment of a remedy and the acquisition of a right due to the passage of time,
primarily through references to the Limitation Act, 1963.
Extinguishment of Remedy:
The Limitation Act is understood to be a statute of repose, peace, and justice. It extinguishes
demands and quiets title. While limitation bars the remedy, it does not bar the right. This
means that even if the prescribed period for filing a suit has expired, the underlying right
might still exist, but the legal avenue to enforce that right through a court of law is closed.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act is crucial here. It provides that every suit instituted, appeal
preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed even though
limitation has not been set up as a defence. This makes it clear that the court has a mandate to
dismiss time-barred matters, effectively extinguishing the remedy of approaching the court
for relief.
In the case of Bombay Dyeing, stating that time-barred debt is good – only the remedy is
barred. This case law explicitly supports the principle that the right to the debt remains, even
if the limitation period to sue for its recovery has expired.
Acquisition of Right:
Section 27 of the Limitation Act, which deals with adverse possession. This section states
that adverse possession acts as a shield, and the right is extinguished. While this section talks
about the extinguishment of the original owner's right due to adverse possession, it implicitly
suggests that the person in adverse possession, after the expiry of the prescribed period,
acquires a right to the property.
Section 25 of the Limitation Act concerns the acquisition of an easement by prescription.
This section indicates that continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment of an easement for a
specified period can lead to the acquisition of a prescriptive right to that easement. This is a
clear example of a right being acquired through the passage of time and the fulfillment of
certain conditions.
In summary:
•The Limitation Act primarily focuses on barring the remedy to enforce a right if it is not
pursued within the prescribed period. Section 3 mandates the dismissal of such time-barred
actions. The Bombay Dyeing case illustrates that the underlying right can still exist even
when the remedy is barred.
•In contrast, the Act also contains provisions like Section 25 concerning easement by
prescription and Section 27 concerning adverse possession, which describe how rights (either
to an easement or ownership of property) can be acquired through the lapse of time under
specific circumstances. In the case of adverse possession, the original owner's right is
extinguished, leading to the acquisition of a new right by the adverse possessor.
Therefore, the Limitation Act distinguishes between the barring of a legal remedy to enforce
an existing right due to the passage of time and the actual acquisition of a new right through a
similar process under specific legal conditions.