CPC ASSIGNMENT Limitation Bars The Remedy & Not The Right

CPC Assignment
Sub: Limitation Bars the Remedy & Not the Right
Submitted By,
Jash C James
Roll No. 39
5/6th B.B.A, LL.B
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................2
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................3
Limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish a right. ................4
Meaning ..............................................................................................4
Rule Of Limitation..............................................................................4
Case Laws ...........................................................................................8
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................10
2
INTRODUCTION
Law of Limitation merely bars the remedy, but not the

right. It is well known that the Limitation Act, with regard to
personal action, bars the remedy without extinguishing the
rights. The law of limitation bars the remedy of plaintiff but
does not extinguish his right. It is meant to see that the plaintiff
does not resort to dilatory tactics, but seeks his remedy within
a time fixed by the Legislature.
The Limitation Act lays down a rule of substantive law in

Section 27. It declares that after the lapse of the period provided
by this enactment, the right itself is gone and the title ceases to
exist, and not merely the remedy. The concept is discussed in
detail in this paper.
3
Limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish a right.
Meaning
In this statement, the word “right” is used to mean a

primary and substantive right. In the wider sense of the word,
remedy is also a right but a secondary right, a procedural right.
The rule that limitation bars the remedy but not the right is
contained in Section 3 of the Act. It states that every suit
instituted, appeal preferred & application made after the
prescribed period shall be dismissed. The second part of the
rule that it does not bar the right is a necessary corollary of the
first since Section 3 only bars the judicial remedy.
Rule Of Limitation
The rule of limitation is a rule of procedure, a branch of

adjective law. It does not either create rights or extinguish
rights, except in the case of acquisition of title to immovable
property by prescription under Section 27 of Limitation Act,
1963.
4
After the remedy is barred by limitation, the right remains as a
moral obligation or can be availed to furnish consideration for
a fresh enforceable obligation. So, a right to the debt does not
cease to exist only because its recovery is barred by the statute
of limitation. A debtor can pay the “time barred debt” and
cannot claim it back on the plea that it was barred by limitation.
Similarly, if a debtor has several debts due to a creditor & he

makes payment without any specification, then the creditor can
adjust it towards any of the debts even if recovery of such debts
is barred by time.
If an owner, whose property is encroached upon, suffers his

right to be barred by the law of limitation the practical effect is
the extinction of his title in favour of the party in possession. It
is of the utmost consequence in India that the security which
long possession affords should not be weakened.
As between private owners contesting inter so the title to lands,

the law has established a limitation of twelve years: after that
5
time, it declares not simply that the remedy is barred, but that
the title is extinct in favour of the possessor.
When a person’s suit for possession of any property is barred

by limitation under the Act, his right to such property stands
extinguished: Section 27, under this section, not only the
ownership of one person is extinguished, but an absolute
ownership is also acquired by the other person in adverse
possession
Under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, a barred debt is good

consideration for a fresh promise to pay the amount. When a
debtor makes a payment without any direction as to how it is to
be appropriated, the creditor has the right to appropriate it
towards a barred debt. It has also been held that a creditor is
entitled to recover the debt from the surety, even though a suit
on it is barred against the principal debtor. And when a creditor
has a lien over goods by way of security for a loan, he can
enforce the lien for obtaining satisfaction of the debt, even
though an action thereon would be time-barred.
6
Since the limitation bars the remedy by filing a suit & does not
extinguish the right, a defendant can set up a right in defence
though he could not have enforced the right by way of a suit.
There is no limitation against a defence.
The only exception to this rule that limitation bars the remedy
and not the right is contained in Section 27 of Limitation Act,
1963. It that in a suit for possession of any property, on the
determination of limitation period, not only the remedy but the
right is also extinguished. In such a circumstance, a defendant
cannot also set up such an extinguished right by way of
defence.
It is sometimes expressed that the plea of limitation is dishonest

plea. Although a debt may be irrecoverable in court, it
nevertheless continues to be binding on the debtor in forum of
the conscience. But considering the object of law doctrine of
law of limitation, it cannot be said that it is unjust to raise the
plea. Moreover, in India, the question of morality of the plea is
of less consequence, for whether the defendant takes up the plea
of limitation or not, the court is bound u/s 3 of Limitation Act,
to dismiss a suit if out of time.
7
It is sometimes said that the statute of limitationis a statute of
repose, peace and justice. This is because the statute of
limitation, in a way, furnishes guarantee to the general public
that after the lapse of certain period, their settled rights or title
shall not be
Case Laws
In case of PNB vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC, PNB
gave loan to Mr. Dubey, Surendra Prasad Sinha stood guarantor
& executed a security bond giving FDR to bank. Dubey
defaulted in payment of loan. Bank did not proceed against Mr.
Dubey for 3 years. Limitation expired. Even after 4 years when
FD of Surendra Prasad Sinha was to mature, bank deducted
loan & interest amount from FDR of Surendra Prasad Sinha &
credited the remaining amount in savings account of Surendra
Prasad Sinha. Sinha filed criminal complaint for 405, 409
criminal misappropriations. HC declined to quash complaint.
SC quashed the complaint. It was geld that though the right to
enforce the debt by judicial process is barred, the right to debt
remains. The time barred debt does not cease to exist by virtue
8
of Section 3. The debt is not extinguished but the remedy to
enforce the debt is destroyed.
In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it

was held by the Supreme Court “that the Limitation Act is
based upon public policy which is used for fixing a life span of
a legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. It has been
pointed out that the Law of Limitation are not only meant to
destroy the rights of the parties but are meant to look to the
parties who do not resort to the tactics but in general to seek
remedy. It fixes the life span for legal injury suffered by the
aggrieved person which has been enshrined in the maxim
‘interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium’ which means the Law of
Limitation is for general welfare and that the period is to be put
into litigation and not meant to destroy the rights of the person
or parties who are seeking remedy. The idea with regards to this
is that every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed
period of time.
9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• www.shareyouressays.com
• www.lawyerslaw.org
• www.vakilno1.com
• www.indiankanoon.org
• www.netlawman.co.in
• www.dullb.com
• www.legalservicesindia.com
10

CPC ASSIGNMENT Limitation Bars The Remedy & Not The Right

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPC ASSIGNMENT Limitation Bars The Remedy & Not The Right

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPC Assignment

Sub: Limitation Bars the Remedy & Not the Right

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................2

Case Laws ...........................................................................................8

Law of Limitation merely bars the remedy, but not the

The Limitation Act lays down a rule of substantive law in

In this statement, the word “right” is used to mean a

The rule of limitation is a rule of procedure, a branch of

Similarly, if a debtor has several debts due to a creditor & he

If an owner, whose property is encroached upon, suffers his

As between private owners contesting inter so the title to lands,

When a person’s suit for possession of any property is barred

Under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, a barred debt is good

It is sometimes expressed that the plea of limitation is dishonest

In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it

You might also like