The document discusses the Limitation Act of 1963 in India. It establishes that this act governs the time limit for filing legal suits, applications, and appeals. The key objectives of the act are to provide a defined period for aggrieved parties to seek legal remedies and prevent unlimited litigation. The act is based on the principles of finalizing litigation and protecting vigilant parties. It establishes time limits for different legal matters and allows for condoning delays under certain circumstances like illness or imprisonment.

2. Background of The Limitation Act,
1963
 In India, the legislation which governs and regulates
the period within which a suit is supposed to be
instituted is known as the Limitation Act, 1963. This
legislation enumerates relevant provisions regarding
the delay in filing application, suit and appeal under
competent jurisdiction and how that delay can be
condoned. This legislation extinguishes the remedy to
the party and not the right to file delayed documents
in court which substantially prevents the legal right
from getting defeated.

3. The limitation Act
 The limitation Act works on the principle of two legal
maxims which can be stated as follows:
 Interest republicae ut sit finis litium which means that
for the public interest, litigation must come to an end.
 Vigilantibus non dormentibus jura subveninet which
means that court protect those who are vigilant about
their own rights.

4. Objective And Applicability Of The
Limitation Act, 1963
1.The main objective that the Limitation Act, 1963 serves is to
primarily provide a the time limit within which the
aggrieved party can institute a suit, application or appeal in
the court.
2. If legislation upon limitation is not enacted, then
it would lead to an unconditional and never-ending
litigation procedure, as no party would be concerned to
refer a timely litigation and the party will file suit for a
cause of action that has been executed a long time back
and which may have no relevance in the present time.

5. case
 In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy (1998)7
SCC 123
 The apex court held that the limitation Act, 1963 is
primarily based on public policy to fix a time during
which the aggrieved party can ask for a legal remedy
for the general welfare.

6. Meaning of Limitation

The term limitation should be literarily interpreted as
the term itself states it’s meaning i.e. restriction or the
rule or circumstances which are limited. It means that
the circumstance under which legal remedy is
obtained is barred by time as per the law. The law of
limitation specifically prescribes a particular time limit
during which an aggrieved party shall approach the
court to receive the legal remedy.

7. Cont..
 As per the law of limitation, no court shall have the
jurisdiction to try a suit, or entertain an application or
appeal, if it is filed after the prescribed period. This
prescribed period has been specifically highlighted
under the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 with
the head “period of limitation”

8. Condonation Of Delay
 The condonation of delay means the extension of
prescribed time in certain cases subject to sufficient
cause. The concept of condoning a delay is primarily
preferred to the applications and appeal and does not
cover the suits. The rationale behind the doctrine not
including the suit is that this doctrine is regarded as an
exception to the general rule that is Bar of limitation
under the legislation and hence, it does not include
suit.

9. Condonation of delay
 The term condonation means an implied pardon of
an offense by treating the offender as if it had not been
committed. Here, the referred offense is the offense of
ignoring the law of period that has been prescribed by
the Limitation Act, 1963. The legal representatives of
the party pray and humbly requests to the Hon’ble
court to pardon their offense of ignoring the law of
limitation and proceed as if no offense has been
committed by the party.

10. Condonation of Delay Under The Indian
Limitation Act, 1963- Primary Focus On Section 5

Section 5[6] of the Limitation Act, 1963 dealt with the
extension of the prescribed period in a certain case. It
states that if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the
court that he had a sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal or making the application within such
period, then such an application or appeal shall be
admitted after the prescribed period.

11. Section 5 in The Limitation Act,
1963
 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.

12.  In Ram Kali Kuer v. Indradeo Chaudhary[AIR 1985
Pat 148] it was held that section 5 does not provide
that an application in writing must be filed before
relief under the said provision can be granted.

13.  In IOCL v. Subrata Borah Chowlek[(2010) 12 SCALE 209:
2010 (262) ELT 3] it was held that though section 5
envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the
court, and makes no distinction between the state and the
citizens, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof
in case of Government, which is dependent on the actions
of its official, who often do not have any personal interest
in its transactions may lead to grave miscarriage of justice
and therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in
such cases.

14. General Principles to Be Followed:
 In Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji[AIR 1987 SC 1353]
The Supreme Court also gave certain principle which binds the
Courts to follow while adjudicating and interpreting the issue
regarding condonation of delay. These areOrdinarily, a litigant
does not have the right to receive benefit from filing a late
appeal.
 If the delay is condoned, then the case must be decided after
both parties have been provided with an opportunity of being
heard before the court. But if condonation is refused, then there
is a chance that a meritorious matter would be thrown out on the
basis of technicalities.

15. Cont..
 It is not required to take a pedantic approach while dealing
with an explanation of the delay. The doctrine has to be
applied in a rational and pragmatic manner.
 Between substantial justice and technical considerations,
the substantial justice should be preferred before since the
other side cannot contend to have a superior right in
injustice being done under a bona fide mistake.

16. Instances for condone
Following are the instances when the delay can be condoned:
 Subsequent changes in the law
 Illness of the party
 Party being a Pardanishin Lady
 Imprisonment of a party
 The party belongs to a minority group who has insufficient funds
 Poverty
 Party is a government servant
 The delay is caused due to pendency of writ petition
 The party is illiterate