Bar of Limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act

Section 3 is the operative core of the Limitation Act. It commands the court to dismiss any suit, appeal or application brought after the prescribed period, whether or not the opposite party raises limitation. Everything else in the Act either fixes the period, adjusts it, or excuses delay. This note explains the nature of the bar, the court's duty, when a proceeding is treated as instituted, the treatment of set-off and counter-claim, and the leading cases.

1. The Mandatory Bar

Figure 1: How section 3 operates

• Text, s.3(1). Subject to ss.4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
• Kamlesh Babu v Lajpat Rai Sharma (2008). Section 3 casts a duty on the court to examine limitation itself; the plea may be considered even if not raised in the pleadings, where the facts are on record.
• Noharlal Verma v District Co-operative Central Bank (2008). The provision is mandatory; a court has no discretion to entertain a time-barred proceeding, even if the opposite party does not object.
• No consent or waiver. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction to hear a time-barred proceeding by consent; the bar is a matter of public policy.
• Only through ss.4 to 24. Relief from the bar comes only from the provisions of the Act itself, such as condonation, exclusion or acknowledgment, not from general equity.

2. When a Proceeding Is Instituted

Figure 2: Section 3(2)

• Presentation, not admission. A suit is instituted when the plaint is presented to the proper officer, even if it is registered or numbered later.
• Set-off and counter-claim. Both are treated as separate suits. A set-off relates back to the date of the suit; a counter-claim is judged on the date it is actually made in court, so it may be time-barred even if the suit was in time.
• Defective filing. Where a plaint or appeal is filed in time but returned for defects, courts generally treat delay in re-filing more leniently than delay in filing, though it still needs explanation.

3. Limitation and Rejection of Plaint

• Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC. A plaint must be rejected where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law, including limitation.
• Mixed questions. Where limitation depends on disputed facts, such as the date of knowledge, the issue is usually decided at trial rather than on a reading of the plaint (Topic 23)

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Can a court dismiss a suit as time-barred if the defendant does not raise limitation?

Yes, and it must. Section 3(1) requires dismissal of a time-barred suit, appeal or application although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The Supreme Court in Kamlesh Babu v Lajpat Rai Sharma (2008) held that the court is under a duty to consider limitation on its own.

When is a counter-claim treated as instituted for limitation?

Under section 3(2)(b), a counter-claim is treated as a separate suit instituted on the date on which it is made in court. A set-off, by contrast, is deemed instituted on the same date as the suit in which it is pleaded.

5. Related Topics

• Topic 5: Condonation of Delay, Section 5. Relief for appeals and applications.
• Topic 23: Equity, Limitation and the Plea of Limitation. Pleading and deciding limitation.