Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act

Last updated

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) is an enabling provision to assist the litigants who failed to do an act within the prescribed time period as originally fixed under various enactments. Whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 will be applicable to the Execution Proceedings instituted under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 9 of 1908). [1]

Contents

Introduction

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) is an enabling provision to assist the litigants who failed to do an act within the prescribed time period as originally fixed under the various enactments. For example, a litigant who failed to file an Appeal before the superior courts within the permissible time period as originally fixed then he can file it after the expiry of the prescribed time period provided he has to show “sufficient cause” for non-filing the Appeal within the time period. Likewise while running a case either before the subordinates’ courts or any superior courts; the litigants have to file necessary applications under various enactments for smooth running of the case, but if such applications has not been filed in-time then he can file it later on provided he has shown “sufficient cause” for late filing of the same. [1] Recently the Supreme Court of India has held that Law of Limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its Rigour read more

Non-application of Section 5 to certain cases

Gist of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which runs as follows:

5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases: Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation: The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

Gist of Rule 105 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Rule 105: Hearing of application: (1) The Court, before which an application under any of the foregoing rules of this Order is pending, may fix a day for the hearing of the application.
(2) Where on the day fixed or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the applicant does not appear when the case is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the application be dismissed.
(3) Where the applicant appears and the opposite party to whom the notice has been issued by the Court does not appear, the Court may hear the application exparte and pass such order as it thinks fit.

Explanation: An application referred to in sub-rule (1) includes a claim or objection made under rule 58.

Thereafter a proviso was added to sub-rule (3) by way of an Amendment made by the Madras High Court which was published by the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette [2] dated 27-02-1972, Part V, Page 1523 which is applicable to both Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Courts and the proviso which runs as follows: “Provided that an application may be admitted after the said period of thirty days if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period”

Amendments made to Code of Civil Procedure

A major amendment was made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) by way of Amendment Act 104 of 1976, Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 22 of 2002 and all those Amendment Acts in its “Repeal and Savings Clauses” clearly specifics that any amendment made or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court shall also stand repealed, except insofar as it is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act.

So again a doubt arises that what is meant by “Principal Act” with reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for which lot of judicial pronouncements are there which unanimously held that “Principal Act” which refers only to the "body of the Code" or the "Sections Part of the Code" and not to the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

As such in view of Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the High Courts have the powers to annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the First Schedule of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it implies that the High Courts have not powers to amend the "body of the Code" or the "Sections Part of the Code"....

Collaborative discussions

In view of the Amendments made to the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) which discusses the Orders and Rules for implementing the Act among which a Proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 105 of Order XXI which paves ways to the defaulting litigants who satisfies the Court that he had “sufficient cause” for not making the application within the prescribed period.

So Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which strictly prohibits from entertaining any application under this Section before the Executing Court which implies in its words that, “Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)" as such the Madras High Court has made an Amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 thereby a new Proviso was added to sub-rule (3) to Rule 105 of Order XXI (vide Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27-02-1972, Part V, Page 1523) which paves ways to the defaulting litigants who satisfies the Court that he had “sufficient cause” for not making the application within the prescribed period as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in its landmark decision dated 12-08-2011 in N.Rajendran Vs. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager which is reported in [2011 (5) Madras Law Weekly 174]. [3] [4]

Conclusion

As mandated under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) no application would be maintainable before the Executing Court under this provision as such it is clearly concluded that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is strictly non-applicable to Execution Proceedings and the aggrieving party who lost his rights by way of his default may seek remedy under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) itself since it seems to be a “Self-contained Enactment” for every exigencies arisen thereof.

Related Research Articles

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. Decisions that fall within the discretionary power of public officials can not be controlled by the writ. For example, mandamus can not force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made. If the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Singapore</span>

The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are largely statutory in nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

Japanese patent law is based on the first-to-file principle and is mainly given force by the Patent Act of Japan. Article 2 defines an invention as "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature".

Title 18 of the United States Code is the main criminal code of the federal government of the United States. The Title deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure. In its coverage, Title 18 is similar to most U.S. state criminal codes, typically referred to by names such as Penal Code, Criminal Code, or Crimes Code. Typical of state criminal codes is the California Penal Code. Many U.S. state criminal codes, unlike the federal Title 18, are based on the Model Penal Code promulgated by the American Law Institute.

Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 (1980), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the test for determining whether federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state law as opposed to federal law. The question in Walker is whether in a diversity action the federal court should follow state law or, alternatively, Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in determining when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the state statute of limitations (SOL). The Court found no such conflict because a court’s refusal to apply the federal rule at issue would not in fact thwart some purpose the federal rule was intended to achieve. Favored treatment for federal procedural rules under the Rules Enabling Act is only appropriate when a rule is in fact applicable.

The Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is an act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

In English law, a costs lawyer is a legal professional concerned with legal costs who has attained rights of audience and rights to conduct costs litigation.

Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.

<i>Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs</i>

Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989. The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds. These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs which had been overruled in 1988 by Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs, and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA. In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Civil Procedure (India)</span> Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a procedural law related to the administration of civil proceedings in India.

Plaint checking under Indian law by the Sheristadar Court is essentially a formal pre-admission scrutiny of the pleadings filed in law courts of India. The process is aimed at filtering out non-jurisdictional cases and getting other formal defects such as computation of Court fees and stamping of instruments, annexing spot map to the Plaint etc., rectified before the case is heard. In a Judgment the Bombay High court held that the trial court shall place such suits in objection category until the requirements of Order VII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. Similar direction has been imparted by Delhi High Court in its court rule file procedure. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has prescribed procedure and rules for examination of Plaint in part C of its "Practice in the Trial of Civil Suits".

References

  1. 1 2 "The Limitation Act, 1963". Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
  2. ↑ "Gazette - Stationery and Printing Department, Tamil Nadu". Archived from the original on 2008-12-18. Retrieved 2025-01-07.
  3. ↑ "Revision against the order dated 09.11.2010 made in unnumbered E.A. of 2010 in E.P.No.70 of 2009 in ARC No.44 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur". Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2013-02-03.
  4. ↑ Unknown [ permanent dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.