EXTENSION OF PRESCRIBED PERIOD
Every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the period the limitation prescribed therefore shall be dismissed. Explain the statement with reference to its exceptions, if any.
Indian Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes the period of limitation for filing the suit, appeal or application and it is duty of an aggrieved person to initiate the legal proceedings within that time period and if an aggrieved person does not file the suit, appeal or application within the prescribed period of limitation, then according to section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the court has power to dismiss that suit, appeal or application.
According to section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, it is mandatory for the court to dismiss that suit which has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation.
In the leading case of Shankar Dass Narayan Dass vs. Sita Ram Jawala, the Hon’ble court held that section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, lays down that a suit, appeal or application filed beyond the time prescribed, therefore, shall be dismissed although limitation is not set up as defence by the opposite party.
Moreover, in the leading case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. vs Raoji Harilal, the Hon’ble court held that the courts have no inherent powers to protect the litigant from the rigours of section 3 and it is mandatory for the court to dismiss the suit etc. if it has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation.
This is a general rule that if the suit, appeal or application has been filed after the period of limitation then it is mandatory for the court to dismiss the suit, appeal or application but section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is an exception to this general rule.
According to section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, if any appeal or application other than application under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by an aggrieved party after the expiry of period of limitation and if that party has sufficient cause to prove the delay, then in such a situation, the court will not dismiss the appeal or application.
This section does not apply upon suits but it applies only upon appeals or applications and the court can allow the appeal or application which has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation only if the litigant has sufficient cause to prove the delay.
In the leading case of Brij Inder Singh vs. Lala Khushi Ram, the Hon’ble court held that the court can exercise the discretionary power only if the litigant has sufficient cause to prove the delay. If the litigant fails to prove the sufficient cause, then in such a situation, the court will not allow the appeal or application.
Moreover, in the leading case of State of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality, the Hon’ble court held that the word ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence for inaction is imputable to a party.
