Skip to main content

Followers

ES "जब एक बार मर्यादा का बलना प्रारंभ हो जाता है तो वाद चलाने के बाद अयोग्यता इसे रोकती नहीं।" इसे उदाहरण सहित समझाइए।

 Principle: "Once Limitation Time Has Begun to Run, No Subsequent Disability Stops It"

This legal principle is derived from Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which states:

"Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it."

In simpler terms, once the period of limitation for filing a suit or application starts, it does not pause or extend due to any later disability of the plaintiff. The limitation period continues to run uninterrupted, regardless of any subsequent incapacity, such as illness, death, or legal disability.


Illustrations to Explain the Principle

1. Death of Plaintiff After the Limitation Period Starts

  • Suppose a person has three years to file a suit for breach of contract, starting from 1st January 2020.
  • If that person dies in 2022 (before filing the suit), their legal heirs cannot claim an extension.
  • The limitation period will expire on 31st December 2022, irrespective of the death.

2. Plaintiff Becomes Mentally Incapacitated After Limitation Begins

  • A person entitled to sue for property has 12 years from the date of dispossession (say, from 1st January 2010).
  • If in 2015, the person suffers from mental illness, the limitation will not stop.
  • The deadline remains 31st December 2021, despite the mental incapacity.

3. Imprisonment of Plaintiff After Limitation Starts

  • A creditor has three years from the due date to sue a debtor for non-payment of a loan.
  • If, during this period, the creditor is imprisoned, the limitation does not pause due to imprisonment.
  • Once the time starts, it continues running until expiry.

4. Change in Law or Court Procedure Does Not Stop Limitation

  • If a law changes or a court is temporarily closed after the limitation starts, the period does not stop.
  • For example, if someone had six months to file an appeal starting from 1st July 2022, and courts shut down due to unforeseen circumstances in November 2022, the limitation period still expires as scheduled.

Exceptions to the Rule (When Limitation Can Be Extended)

Although Section 9 enforces strict continuity of limitation, some exceptions exist under the Limitation Act, 1963:

  1. Legal Disability at the Start (Section 6)

    • If the plaintiff was a minor, insane, or of unsound mind when the cause of action arose, the limitation begins only after the disability is removed.
    • Example: If a minor is entitled to sue at age 10, the limitation starts only when they turn 18.
  2. Acknowledgment of Liability (Section 18)

    • If the defendant acknowledges the debt or liability in writing before the limitation expires, a fresh period of limitation starts from the date of acknowledgment.
  3. Fraud or Concealment (Section 17)

    • If the defendant commits fraud or conceals material facts, the limitation period starts only when the fraud is discovered.
  4. Force Majeure (COVID-19 Example)

    • The Supreme Court of India extended limitation periods during the COVID-19 lockdown (2020-21), recognizing that legal disabilities beyond one's control can affect filing deadlines.

Conclusion

  • General Rule: Once the limitation clock starts, it cannot be paused due to any subsequent disability (death, imprisonment, or illness).
  • Exceptions: If disability existed at the start, if fraud occurred, or if acknowledgment was made, limitation can be extended.

This principle ensures certainty in litigation and prevents indefinite delays in filing lawsuits. 🚀

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

चिल्ड्रन डे की ढ़ेरों बधाईयां

  मेरे प्यारे नन्हें बच्चों!   पहले, मैं सभी बच्चों को इस दिन की बहुत-बहुत शुभकामनाएँ देना चाहता हूँ। आप सभी इस दुनिया का सबसे अनमोल हिस्सा हैं। आपके शिक्षक उम्र और तजुर्बे में आपसे काफी बड़े है, बढ़ती उम्र उनके माथे में अनायास सिकन लाती है l दुनियाभर की बेमतलब जिम्मेदारियों के बोझ में शिक्षक को सुकून तब मिलता है जब आपका मुस्कुराता हुआ चेहरा सामने आता है l आपको शायद अभी इसका अहसास न हो, लेकिन इस बात में कोई दो राय नहीं है कि आप सभी उस ईश्वर/भगवान या उस अलौकिक परमतत्व के प्रतिरूप है l  चिल्ड्रन डे, जो कि हमारे प्रिय पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के जन्मदिन पर मनाया जाता है, हमें यह याद दिलाता है कि बच्चों का भविष्य हमारे समाज का भविष्य है। नेहरू जी ने हमेशा बच्चों के विकास और शिक्षा को प्राथमिकता दी। उन्होंने कहा था कि "बच्चे हमारे भविष्य हैं," और यही कारण है कि हमें उन्हें प्यार, देखभाल और सही दिशा में मार्गदर्शन देना चाहिए। आज का दिन सिर्फ उत्सव मनाने के लिए नहीं हैं, बल्कि हमें यह भी सोचना है कि हम बच्चों को कैसे एक सुरक्षित, खुशहाल और समृद्ध जीवन दे सकते हैं। हमें बच्चों क...

भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय

  संगठन चार्ट प्रधान सचिव रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक सूचीकरण) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार / एआर-सह-पीएस शाखा अधिकारी/कोर्ट मास्टर व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक प्रशासन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (खरीद एवं भंडार) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार-I (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायाधीश प्रशासन एवं अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (प्रौद्योगिकी) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार(कंप्यूटर) शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी/ तकनीक. सहायक-सह-प्रोग्रामर रजिस्ट्रार-II (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायालय एवं भवन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप...

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12 Sub :- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Facts of the case:- 1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion. 2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date. 3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer. 4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard. 5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it. 6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer. Trial Court...