Tuesday, May 28, 2024

𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗗𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺™

𝙰𝙵𝙵𝙾𝚁𝙳𝙰𝙱𝙻𝙴 & 𝙰𝙲𝙲𝙴𝚂𝚂𝙸𝙱𝙻𝙴

LIMITATIONMODEL ANSWER

REMEDY VS RIGHT

“Limitation bars the remedy but does not destroy the right.” Discuss the statement.

Indian Justice System is based upon the principle of ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’. It means that where there is a right there is a remedy.

In India, every person is vested with some basic rights and being a Guardian of citizens, it is a duty of the government to protect these rights. But if any wrongdoer infringes the rights of any other person, then that aggrieved person has right to file a suit against that wrongdoer and an aggrieved person can initiate legal proceedings against that person and can compensation from the wrongdoer.

However, an aggrieved person can file the suit only within the period of limitation that has been prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. According to Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is responsibility of an aggrieved person to file the suit against wrongdoer within the prescribed period. If an aggrieved person does not file the suit within the time frame, then it is mandatory for the court to dismiss that suit.

In the leading case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ravji Harilal, the Hon’ble court held that courts have no inherent power to protect the litigant from the rigours of section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and if suit has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation, then it is mandatory for the court to dismiss the suit even if no plea of limitation has been raised by opposite party.

According to Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963, even if suit has been dismissed by the court on the ground of expiry of limitation period, then also, the right to which the remedy relates continue to exist.

Generally, it means that Limitation Act, 1963, bars the remedy, it does not destroy the right. The right still remains subsisting even if the remedy has been barred by Limitation Act, 1963.

In the leading case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, the Hon’ble Court held that section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963, only bars the remedy but it does not destroy the right to which the remedy relates to. The right continues to exist notwithstanding the remedy has been barred by the limitation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!