CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II

(Including Limitation Act)

Capsule Note

Unit I: Suits in Particular Cases

1. Suits By or Against Government

o Provision: Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code
(CPC) outlines how suits can be filed by or against the
government or public officers.
o Definition: Cases involving the government as a party,
whether as plaintiff or defendant.
o Explanation: Before suing the government or a public
officer in their official capacity, a two-month notice
must be served.
o Case Law:

State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works

Ltd., AIR 1978 SC 1608 - This case held that failure
to comply with Section 80 is fatal to the suit unless
waiver or urgent relief justifies it.

State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, 1962 -

Established the government's liability for torts
committed by public servants.

o Key Point: Notice requirement under Section 80 CPC

provides that no suit shall be instituted against the
government until after a two-month notice.
2. Suits Involving Corporations, Trustees, Executors, and
Administrators
o Provision: Order XXIX, CPC for corporations; Orders
XXXI-XXXII for trustees, executors, and
administrators.
o Definition: Corporations are treated as legal persons;
executors and administrators manage estates after an
individual's death.
o Explanation: Corporations may sue or be sued in their
name. Trustees, executors, and administrators
represent the estate or trust in legal proceedings.
o Case Law:

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee,
Amritsar v. Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, AIR 1955
SC 576 - A corporation can be a juristic person
capable of suing and being sued in its own name.

Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia

College v. State of Delhi, 1962 - Defined corporate
liability and the procedures corporations follow to
defend themselves in lawsuits.

3. Suits by or against Minors and Lunatics

o Provision: Order XXXII of CPC provides special
procedures for cases involving minors and individuals
with mental incapacities, including the appointment of
a “next friend” or guardian.
o Definition: Cases where one party lacks legal capacity
due to age or mental health.
o Explanation: Minors and individuals with mental
incapacities must be represented by a guardian ad
litem in all suits.
o Case Law:

Amritlal N. Shah v. Komal Amritlal Shah, AIR

2004 SC 4110 - Emphasized that courts must ensure
fair representation of minors and incapacitated
persons.

Sheela Barse v. Union of India, 1986 -

Protected minors' rights and established the duty to
appoint suitable guardians.

4. Suits by Aliens and Against Foreign Rulers or

Ambassadors
o Provision: Sections 83-87B, CPC, which provide
immunity from being sued for foreign rulers and
ambassadors.
o Definition: Cases involving international entities and
officials, often limited by immunity.
o Explanation: Aliens, foreign rulers, and ambassadors
generally enjoy limited immunity unless consent is
provided by the sovereign state.
Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
o Case Law:

Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic,

AIR 1966 SC 230 - This case addressed the immunity
of foreign sovereigns, emphasizing international
comity.

Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India, 1986 -

Established the scope and limitations of foreign
dignitaries’ immunities.

5. Public Nuisance
o Provision: Section 91, CPC allows suits related to
public nuisances that affect a community, even if the
plaintiff has no special personal interest.
o Definition: Harm caused to the public, such as
pollution or unauthorized obstruction.
o Explanation: Allows individuals or groups to bring
action to address public nuisances that harm the
public or community.
o Case Law:

Ratlam Municipality v. Vardichan, AIR 1980

SC 1622 - Established that citizens can take action
against public nuisance even if the state fails to act.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 - Landmark

case on environmental public nuisance, established
rights to a healthy environment.

6. Suits by or Against Firms

o Provision: Order XXX, CPC deals with the procedure
for suits involving partnerships.
o Definition: Cases where a business entity is involved
as a plaintiff or defendant.
o Explanation: Permits suits involving partnerships to
be filed in the firm’s name, and partners bear joint and
several liabilities.
o Case Law:

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
Purushottam v. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works,
AIR 2007 SC 1746 - Clarified that partners can be
held individually accountable in firm suits.

Purushottam & Co. v. Manilal & Sons, 1961 -

Defined the rights of partners in suits against firms.

7. Suits in Forma Pauperis

o Provision: Order XXXIII, of CPC allows indigent
persons to sue without paying court fees.
o Definition: Cases where plaintiffs lack sufficient
financial resources for court fees.
o Explanation: Allows individuals without sufficient
funds to file suits without paying court fees.
o Case Law:

Union Bank of India v. Khader International

Constructions, AIR 2001 SC 2271 - Outlined conditions
to qualify as a pauper and protections against abuse.

8. Mortgage Disputes
o Provision: Order XXXIV, CPC regulates suits related to
mortgage properties.
o Definition: Disputes over the rights and obligations of
mortgagors and mortgagees.
o Explanation: Covers foreclosure, sale, and redemption
in mortgage disputes.
o Case Law:

Gurbax Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810

- Emphasized mortgagor’s rights to redeem before
foreclosure.

Kedarnath v. Sheonarayan, 1955 - Defined

rights of redemption in mortgage disputes.

9. Interpleader Suits
o Provision: Section 88 and Order XXXV, CPC for suits
where two or more parties claim the same property.
o Definition: The court decides the rightful claimant
among competing parties.
Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
o Explanation: Allows a person holding property claimed
by two or more parties to request the court to decide
rightful ownership.
o Case Law:

Sambasiva Chary v. Chinnayya Goundan, AIR

1940 Mad 48 - Established requirements for a valid
interpleader suit.

Sivagurunatha v. S. Rajaratnam, 1954 -

Clarified the interpleader's right to demand relief from
multiple claims.

10. Suits Relating to Public Charities

o Provision: Section 92, CPC covers suits involving the
administration of public charitable trusts.
o Definition: Protects public interests in charitable
organizations.
o Explanation: Allows individuals to bring suits to
address issues with public charities or trusts.
o Case Law:

Bishwanath v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji,

AIR 1967 SC 1044 - Clarified that these suits require
permission from the Advocate General.

Raja Rajeswari Rameshwari Varu v. Raja

Rama Chandra Varu, 1961 - Determined trust
administration rights and obligations.

11. Summary and Supplemental Proceedings

o Provision: Order XXXVII, CPC for summary suits,
where defenses are limited to expedite resolution.
o Definition: Procedures for swift judgment in clear-cut
cases.
o Explanation: Allows for summary judgments without a
full trial in specific cases, mainly involving promissory
notes or bills of exchange.
o Case Law:

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic
Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577 -
Established conditions for summary proceedings.

Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, 1958 -

Established conditions under which summary
proceedings are appropriate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit II: Interim Orders and Related Legal Actions

1. Interim Orders and Commissions

o Provision: Section 75 and Order XXVI, CPC
o Explanation: Courts can appoint commissions to
conduct inquiries, inspections, or investigations during
litigation.
o Case Law:

Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar

Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 - Commission orders are
issued based on necessity to collect evidence.

Padam Sen v. State of U.P., 1961 - Determined

scope for appointing commissioners in civil suits.

2. Arrest and Attachment Before Judgment

o Provision: Order XXXVIII, Rules 1 and 5 of CPC
o Definition: Preventive measure to secure assets before
final judgment.
o Explanation: Allows courts to order arrest or
attachment of a defendant’s property before judgment
to secure the plaintiff’s claim.
o Case Law:

Rajendran Chingaravelu v. RK Mishra, (2010)

1 SCC 457 - Highlighted the preventive and security
nature of these orders.

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
Raman Tech. & Process Eng. Co. v. Solanki
Traders, 2008 - Set limitations on ordering arrest and
attachment.

3. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders

o Provision: Order XXXIX, CPC
o Explanation: Injunctions maintain the status quo,
preventing actions that could harm either party during
the suit.
o Case Law:

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC

276 - Laid down criteria for granting temporary
injunctions.

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.,

1995 - Affirmed principles guiding temporary
injunctions.

4. Receiver Appointments
o Provision: Order XL, CPC
o Explanation: Appointing a receiver protects property
involved in litigation, preserving its value.
o Case Law:

Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., AIR

2007 SC 168 - Receiver appointed when assets need
protection during the suit.

Mathura Prasad v. Chandra Narayan

Chowdhury, 1953 - Defined the role and duties of a
receiver.

5. Withdrawal and Compromise of Suits

o Provision: Order XXIII, CPC
o Explanation: Allows parties to withdraw or
compromise suits with court approval.
o Case Law: K.S. Bhoopathy v. Kokila, AIR 2000 SC
2132 - Addressed the role of judicial discretion in
allowing suit withdrawal.
6. Death, Marriage, and Insolvency of Parties
Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
o Provision: Order XXII, CPC
o Explanation: Procedures for substituting legal
representatives if a party dies, marries, or becomes
insolvent.
o Case Law: Mohan Kumar Rayana v. Komal Mohan
Rayana, AIR 2012 SC 2389 - Outlined steps for
substitution in ongoing suits.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit III: Execution of Decrees

1. Concept and Principles of Execution

o Provision: Section 36-74, Order XXI, CPC
o Definition: Execution is the process of enforcing a
court decree or judgment to give effect to the rights
granted to the successful party.
o Explanation: Execution enforces a court’s decree,
ensuring compliance.
o Case Law:

State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered,

AIR 1992 SC 1740 - Execution is the last stage of
litigation.

State of Maharashtra v. M.S. Builders Pvt.

Ltd. (1992) – Reiterated that execution gives effect to a
judgment and that a decree must be executed in the
manner stipulated by law.

2. Power for Execution of Decrees

 Provision: Section 38, CPC, 1908 – The court which passes

a decree may execute it or transfer it for execution.
 Case Law:

A.C. Arulappan v. Smt. Ahalya Naik (2001) –

Clarified that only the court which passed the decree or to
which it is transferred can execute it.

3. Parties Entitled to Apply for Execution

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
 Provision: Section 146, CPC, 1908 – Any person claiming
under the decree-holder can apply for execution.
 Case Law:

Hirachand Himatlal v. M.G. Venkata Subbaiah

(1952) – Allowed execution by a person deriving title under
the original decree-holder.

4. Transfer of Decrees
o Provision: Section 39, CPC Decrees may be
transferred for execution to another court if the decree-
holder desires.
o Explanation: Allows transfer of decree execution if the
defendant resides outside the jurisdiction.
o Case Law:

Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co., AIR

1955 SC 376 - Established conditions for transfer of
decrees.

Munshi Ram v. Radha Mohan (1968) –

Explained that transfer is discretionary and must serve
the interest of justice.

5. Precept
o Definition: A precept is a command from one court to
another, directing attachment of property before the
final decree is executed.
o Provision: Section 46, CPC, 1908.
o Case Law:
Kanhaiya Lal v. Dr. D.R. Banaji (1958) –
Highlighted the use of precepts to prevent disposal of
assets by the judgment debtor.
6. Execution Against Transferees and Legal
Representatives

 Provision: Section 50, CPC, 1908 – Execution can be

sought against legal representatives of a deceased judgment
debtor.
 Case Law:

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
Nabi Saheb v. Mahabub Saheb (1955) – Held that
legal representatives could be liable to the extent of the
deceased’s estate.

7. Modes of Execution
o Provision: Section 51 and Order XXI of CPC cover
arrest, detention, attachment, sale, and delivery of
property.
o Case Law:
Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin,
1980 - Prevented imprisonment for debt as a mode of
execution under certain conditions.

 Arrest and Detention: Section 55, CPC – Permits arrest

and detention of the judgment debtor in specific cases.
o Case Law: Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin
(1980) – Restriction on arrest for inability to pay debt,
considering fundamental rights.
 Attachment and Sale of Property: Section 60, CPC –
Allows attachment and sale of the debtor’s property to
satisfy the decree.
 Delivery of Property: Section 65, CPC – The property is
delivered to the decree-holder post-attachment and sale.
o Case Law: Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) –
Emphasized proper procedure in property attachment
and sale for fair execution.

8. Stay of Execution

 Provision: Order XXI, Rule 26, CPC – Provides for stay of

execution under specific conditions.
 Case Law: Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs v. Amiya Kumar Roy Chowdhury (1968) –
Outlined when a stay of execution can be granted.

9. Payment under Decree

 Provision: Order XXI, Rule 1, CPC – Specifies how

payments under decrees should be made.

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
 Case Law: Hussain Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (1993)
– Validated payment of decreed amounts to prevent
execution.

-----------------------------------------------
Unit IV: Appeals, Review, and Revision

1. Right of Appeal
o Provision: Sections 96-100, CPC
o Explanation: Appeals enable higher court review,
available against original decrees, appellate decrees,
and certain orders.
o Case Law: Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad v. State
of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 588 - Right of appeal
is a statutory right.
2. Appeals from Decrees and Orders
o Appeals from Original Decrees: Section 96, CPC –
First appeal from a trial court’s judgment.
o Appeals from Appellate Decrees: Section 100, CPC –
Second appeal limited to substantial questions of law.
o Appeals from Orders: Section 104, CPC – Orders in
specific situations can be appealed.
o Case Law: Banarsi v. Ram Phal (2003) – Explained
the limited scope of second appeals.
3. Appeals to the Supreme Court

Provision: Article 136, Constitution of India – Special leave

to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Case Law:

Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) –

Established the Supreme Court’s discretion in granting
special leave to appeal.

4. Reference, Review and Revision

o Provision: Sections 113-115, CPC

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
o Reference: Section 113, CPC – Allows lower courts to
refer cases to the High Court on legal questions.
o Review: Section 114, CPC – Permits the court to
review its judgment under specific conditions.
o Revision: Section 115, CPC – High Courts can revise
orders if they exceed jurisdiction.

o Case Law:

Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, AIR 2000

SC 85 - Defined limits of review and revision.

Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (1964) –

Defined scope and limitations of revision.

5. Transfer of Cases and Restitution

 Provision: Section 24, CPC – High Courts and District

Courts may transfer cases for convenience or justice.
 Restitution: Section 144, CPC – Provides for restitution to
restore parties affected by reversed decrees.
 Case Law: Gurbax Singh v. Financial Commissioner (1991) –
Stressed fair restitution when decrees are set aside.

6. Caveat: Provision, Definition, and Relevant Case Laws

o Provision

 Section 148A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908

governs the filing of a caveat.
 Meaning: A caveat is a preventive measure used in legal
proceedings that allows an individual (the caveator) to
receive notice of any action or proceeding filed against them.
It ensures that the caveator is heard before any ex parte
order is passed against them.
o Definition

 Caveat: Derived from Latin, meaning “let a person beware.”

In legal terms, it is a request made to the court by an
interested party asking the court to notify them before
taking any action on a particular matter.

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
 Purpose: The caveat is intended to protect the caveator's
interests by preventing ex parte decisions (decisions made
in the absence of one party). The caveator gets a chance to
present their side before an order is issued against them.
o Procedural Requirements under Section 148A CPC

1. Filing a Caveat (148A (1)): Any person expecting an

application to be filed against them in a proceeding can file
a caveat.
2. Duration (148A (2)): The caveat remains in effect for 90
days from the date of filing, unless renewed.
3. Duty to Inform (148A (3)): The court must notify the
caveator if an application is made.
4. Service of Application Copy (148A (4)): The applicant
must serve a copy of their application to the caveator,
allowing them to prepare a response.

o Key Case Laws

1. Nirmal Chand v. Girindra Narayan, AIR 1978 Cal 492

o Principle: This case highlighted that a caveat does not
prevent the filing of an application against the
caveator; it simply mandates the court to notify the
caveator and hear their position before passing an
order.
o Significance: Established the importance of the
caveator's right to be notified and heard.
2. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Raj Narain Agarwala, AIR 1980
Cal 206
o Principle: The court clarified that a caveat cannot be
filed in a case where there is no anticipated ex parte
order.
o Significance: This case emphasized that caveats are
appropriate only in cases where a unilateral order may
affect the caveator's rights.
3. Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil
Kadeesa Umma, AIR 1991 Ker 411
o Principle: It was held that filing a caveat does not
amount to an admission of the opponent's case. The

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
caveator only seeks the right to be heard before any
adverse order is made.
o Significance: This clarified that filing a caveat is a
preventive action and does not imply agreement with
the potential opposing party.
4. Crescent Iron & Steel Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Naresh
Tripathi, (1987) 2 SCC 308
o Principle: The Supreme Court observed that a caveat
serves to protect a party from an adverse ex parte
order. If such an order is imminent, the caveator has
the right to know about it and respond before it is
finalized.
o Significance: This case reinforced that the caveator
should be notified before any order affecting them is
issued.
5. BNP Paribas v. Quality Inn India Ltd., AIR 1997 Del 240
o Principle: This case clarified that the purpose of a
caveat is to prevent an ex parte order without the
knowledge and response of the party affected by such
an order.
o Significance: Highlighted the protective nature of
caveats to ensure fair hearing before any decision
affecting the caveator’s interests.

 Key Points of a Caveat

1. Protective Mechanism: Enables the caveator to be heard

and protect their interests by preventing ex parte orders.
2. Limited Duration: The caveat is valid for 90 days from
filing, after which it must be renewed if necessary.
3. Scope of Application: Only applicable when there is a
likelihood of an ex parte order.
4. Procedure: Ensures that any application against the
caveator is served to them, allowing for response
preparation.
5. Not an Admission of Guilt: Filing a caveat is purely
defensive and does not imply acceptance of claims by the
opposing party.

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
A caveat serves as an important tool in civil law to prevent ex
parte decisions and ensure fair procedural rights for all parties
involved. Through these provisions and case laws, it is evident
that caveats protect the right to a fair hearing and procedural
justice.

7. Inherent Powers of the Court

 Provision: Section 151, CPC – Courts possess inherent

powers to act in the interest of justice.
 Case Law:

Rajathi v. C. Ganesan (1999) – Affirmed inherent

powers to prevent abuse of court process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit V: Law of Limitation

Concept and Purpose

o Definition: The law of limitation establishes time

limits within which parties can bring a legal action to
enforce their rights. The principle behind this law is
that the law helps those who are vigilant and actively
protect their rights, rather than those who neglect
them.
o Relevant Provision: The Indian Limitation Act, 1963,
codifies these time frames and outlines when claims
may no longer be enforceable.

o Case Law:

Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013)

14 SCC 81 - Limitation promotes diligent use of rights.

Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh (1973): The

Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act applies as

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
a means of encouraging parties to act timely,
promoting certainty in legal affairs.

Object of Limitation Law

 Purpose: The purpose of the limitation law is to:

o Prevent claims from becoming stale.
o Protect defendants from indefinite legal exposure.
o Ensure evidence is not lost due to delay.
 Relevant Provision: Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963
states that a case instituted after the prescribed period
should be dismissed regardless of any defense regarding
limitation.
 Case Law:
o Balakrishna Savalram Pujari v. Shree Dnyaneshwar
Maharaj Sansthan (1959): This case emphasized that
limitation encourages diligence and protects
defendants from facing outdated claims.

Distinction with Related Doctrines

1. Laches: Refers to unreasonable delay that adversely affects

the other party. While limitation is statutory, laches is a
common law doctrine based on equity.
o Case Law: Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v.
Ashok K. Agarwal (2006) - the Supreme Court
distinguished limitation from laches, emphasizing that
limitation is a legal rule whereas laches is an equitable
principle.
2. Acquiescence: Implies passive acceptance or implied
consent due to inaction.
o Case Law: Ponnuswami Nadar v. Minor Valliammal
(1969) - the court held that acquiescence can
sometimes bar a claim if a party’s silence suggests
consent to the other party’s conduct.
3. Prescription: Acquisition of rights through continuous use
or occupation, distinct from the time-limiting nature of
limitation law.

Continuous Running of Time

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
 Provision: Time begins to run when the right to sue first
accrues and continues until a claim is filed or the limitation
period expires.
 Case Law:
o Ravula Subba Rao v. CIT (1956): The court
interpreted that limitation is a continuous process and
must be calculated from the initial cause of action.

Sufficient Cause for Delay

The Limitation Act allows certain delays if justified under

"sufficient cause." Examples include illness, legal incapacity, and
mistaken legal advice.

 Provision: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, permits an

extension if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not
filing within the limitation period.
 Examples of Sufficient Cause:
o Illness: The plaintiff was too ill to file.
o Mistaken Legal Advice: If a party received incorrect
legal advice but acted in good faith.
o Poverty: In some cases, financial constraints may
justify the delay.
o Minority or Imprisonment: Delay caused by the
plaintiff’s minority age or imprisonment.
 Case Law:
o Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987): The
Supreme Court took a liberal view, allowing an
extension where justice would be better served.

Computation of Limitation Period

 Provision: Sections 12-24 of the Limitation Act cover the

calculation of the limitation period and allow for certain
exclusions, such as time taken to obtain copies of orders, or
where the defendant was absent from the jurisdiction.
 Case Law:
o Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal
Chaudhuri (1940): The court provided guidance on
Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
the computation of time, emphasizing the need to
interpret the act as per its literal terms.

Effect of Acknowledgement

An acknowledgment of a debt or claim can restart the limitation

period, provided it meets certain conditions.

 Provision: Section 18 of the Limitation Act states that if a

debtor acknowledges liability in writing, the limitation
period restarts from the date of acknowledgment.
 Requirements:
o The acknowledgment must be in writing.
o It should be signed by the party making it.
 Case Law:
o Tilak Ram v. Nathu (1967): The court held that an
acknowledgment restarts the limitation period,
providing a new date from which the period is
calculated.

Continuing Torts and Breaches of Contract

In cases of ongoing torts or contractual breaches, each instance

of the tort or breach restarts the limitation period.

 Provision: Section 22 of the Limitation Act states that when

the injury is continuing, a fresh period of limitation shall
begin to run at every instance.
 Case Law:
o State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (1991): The
Supreme Court observed that continuing wrongs
create a new cause of action with each breach.
o Balakrishna Savalram Pujari v. Shree
Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 SC 798
- Defined applicability of limitation in continuous torts.

Acquisition of Ownership by Possession

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)
 CP-16 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE II
(Including Limitation Act)
Capsule Note
The doctrine of adverse possession allows an individual to
acquire ownership rights if they possess property continuously
for a prescribed period.

 Provision: Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides

that 12 years of uninterrupted possession can lead to
ownership, extinguishing the original owner’s right.
 Case Law:
o Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati
(2004): The court held that continuous, open, and
hostile possession can lead to ownership by adverse
possession if not challenged.

Extinguishment of Right to Property

After the limitation period expires, the right to file a suit for
possession or enforcement of rights is extinguished.

 Provision: Section 27 of the Limitation Act states that,

upon the lapse of the limitation period, the right to take
legal action for property recovery is permanently barred.
 Case Law:
o Kashibai v. Parwatibai (1995): The court ruled that
once the limitation period expires, the title of the
original owner extinguishes in favor of the adverse
possessor.

Summary of Key Provisions

 Section 3: Bar of limitation.

 Section 5: Extension for sufficient cause.
 Section 9: Continuous running of time.
 Sections 12-15: Rules for computing limitation.
 Section 18: Effect of acknowledgment.
 Section 22: Continuing breaches.
 Section 27: Extinguishment of property rights through
adverse possession.

Prepared By
MOHAMMED ASLAM
GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR
(2022-25 BATCH)