Limitation act 1 - Lecture notes 1-6 PDF

Preview

Summary

LIMITATION ACT, 1963SECTION-4 AND SECTION-WHEN COURTS IS CLOSEDSECTION 4If the courts is closed on the normal working day of is the court is closed during any usual hours of its working day then in such case court is deemed to be closed.Section 4 applies toSuits appeals applicationsAnd when the cour...

Description

LIMIT LIMITA ATION A ACT CT CT,, 1963 SECTION-4 AND SECTION-5

WHEN COURTS IS CLOSED SECTION 4 If the courts is closed on the normal working day of is the court is closed during any usual hours of its working day then in such case court is deemed to be closed.

Section 4 applies to

Suits

appeals

applications

And when the court is closed due to such instances then party has the right to file a suit appeal or application on the next day when the court reopens.

Eg: the prescribe period ends on 1/January/2019 but the court is closed on the same day on account of new year. Then in such case the applicant can file the case on the next date when the court reopens I.e 2/ February/ 2019.

If the court is also closed on 2/February/2019 then the applicant has the right to file such suit on the next day when the court reopens i.e 3 february 2019.

The date during which the court is closed is excluded from the days of prescribed period and applicant has the right to file it on the next date. Such delay was caused due to court and not by the applicant thus it will not bar sec-3 and he can file the case after the prescribed period is over.

Eg: the court opens between 10:00am till 4:00 p.m. but on 1 january the court was closed between 12:00 am to 3:00 am. Here the court was closed on the period of the normal working day thus it will be deemed that the court is closed and the applicant has the right to file on the next day.

MAXIMS: Section 4 is based on 2 Latin maxims:

1)Lex non cognit ad impossibilia Meaning: Law doesn’t compel a man to do what he can’t possibly perform. When the court is itself closed it can’t compel the man to file the case on the same date.

2)Actus curiae neminem gravabit Meaning: An act of court shall prejudice no man. It means that the court is itself closed so it can’t say though your prescribed period is over your remedy is barred. You have the right to come the next day, court will not prejudice you for it’ act.

CASE

Angadi vs. Hiranmayya Held: Section 4 extends the concession to the man whose prescribed period is over on the date the court is closed.

CONDO N NA ATION OF DELA DELAY Y SECTION 5 Sec 5 is applicable to

Appeals

applications

Sec-5 don’t apply on

Suits

applications under order 21 c.p.c

Key points in sec-5 1) Sufficient cause 2) Discretion of court 3) Not able to file within prescribed period

Section 5 of the limitation act says that if the applicant was unable to file suit within prescribed period but is successful in convincing the court that delay was due to a sufficient cause or due to a reason which was not in his control then such time if court is satisfied removes it from the prescribed period. Such applications or appeals are filed once the prescribed period is over i.e when the applicant has waived off his right to sue in court under limitation act. It’s the dicreation of the court to accept or not to accept the grounds stated as sufficient cause by the applicant.

Grounds of sufficient cause: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Illness Mistake of council Wrong proceedings taken in good faith Illetracy Fraud Defective vakalatnama Inability to get stamps

Cases where no sufficient ground is considered: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Negligence of pleader or his clerk Poverty of the applicant Notice of delivery of judegement was not given to parties Pardanashi lady Poverty Ignorance of law

7) Death in family of lawyer

Cases: Collector land acquisition anant nag vs. Katji Held: liperal approach has to be followed by the court while looking id matter of delay.

Somnath vs. Vivek Held: Ignorance of right of a party is no defence to claim on basis of section 5 of the limitation act, 1963.

Sitaram vs. Nimba Held: time taken by the person while proceeding in wrong court has to be seen as sufficient cause under section 5 limitation act....