Understanding the Principle: Legal Framework Under Limitation Act, 1963
Section 9: Continuous Running of Time
The statutory basis of this doctrine lies in Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which states:
“Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it.”
This provision clarifies that once the cause of action arises and the limitation period starts, it shall not pause due to later disabilities such as minority, insanity, or idiocy.
The law is designed to bring finality and certainty to litigation. If courts were to entertain suits after long delays, crucial evidence might vanish, and justice would be hampered. Therefore, the continuous running of time ensures judicial economy and procedural fairness.
Core Rationale Behind the Principle
The central idea behind this principle is to prevent indefinite uncertainty. If legal proceedings could be indefinitely delayed due to subsequent events, no claim would ever become time-barred.
It also promotes diligence among litigants. Parties must act within the prescribed timeframe, failing which their rights may be extinguished—not because the right does not exist, but because the remedy is lost.
Landmark Judicial Interpretations
1. State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (1991 AIR 2219)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that when a party claims that an order is void or illegal, such a plea must be taken within the limitation period. Once the limitation starts, even subsequent events or allegations of the illegality of an order will not affect the running of time.
Key Takeaway: The limitation period continues to run even if a party contends the cause of action is based on a void order unless the cause of action itself is renewed or extended.
2. P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India (2000) 5 SCC 355
The Court ruled that once time has started, it does not stop running because of subsequent developments. The only exceptions are provided under specific statutory provisions such as Sections 5, 14, or 18 of the Limitation Act.
Key Takeaway: Delay is not condonable merely on the ground that the litigant later became aware of certain facts, unless permitted under specific exceptions.
3. Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 768
The Supreme Court emphasized that ignorance of law or facts cannot delay the commencement of the limitation period. Once the cause of action arises, the clock starts ticking, regardless of whether the aggrieved party knows it or not.
Key Takeaway: The limitation period begins from the date of accrual of the cause of action and continues unaffected by ignorance or misconception.
4. Mirza Rahmat Baig v. Mrs. Zubaida Khatoon, AIR 1988 AP 180
This case reiterated the principle under Section 9. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a subsequent disability occurring after the limitation period starts cannot stop its continuation.
Key Takeaway: Subsequent legal disabilities do not reset or freeze the limitation clock.
5. Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma, (2008) 12 SCC 577
Here, the Court ruled that when a party chooses not to pursue legal remedies within time due to any personal reasons or mistaken advice, such conduct cannot pause the limitation period.
Key Takeaway: Delay due to self-imposed decisions or misinformation does not extend the limitation.
Exceptions to the Principle: When Time Can Pause or Restart
Although the principle is strict, the Limitation Act provides limited exceptions where the time can pause or restart.
a. Section 5 – Condonation of Delay
Permits a delay to be excused in appeals or applications if the applicant shows sufficient cause.
b. Section 14 – Exclusion of Time in Wrong Forum
Allows exclusion of time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction, if the proceeding was pursued in good faith.
c. Section 18 – Acknowledgement of Debt
A fresh limitation period starts from the date of a written acknowledgment of liability before expiry of the original period.
d. Section 19 – Part Payment
Like acknowledgment, part payment also restarts limitation, provided it is made within the original period.
Comparative Perspective: Indian Law vs. English Law
The English common law also follows a similar rule. In Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (1874), the Privy Council ruled that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Indian courts have borrowed this logic and applied it consistently, cementing the idea that time, once begun, continues without pause unless statute says otherwise.
Practical Implications for Litigants and Legal Practitioners
- Vigilance Is Critical: Litigants must file suits or applications promptly once the cause of action arises.
- No Excuse of Later Inability: Becoming a minor or insane after time starts does not pause limitation.
- Adherence to Exceptions: Lawyers must wisely use Sections 5, 14, 18, or 19 when applicable.
- Documentation of Cause of Action: Date of knowledge must be carefully recorded, especially in cases involving fraud or latent defects.
Illustrative Scenarios
| Scenario | Effect on Limitation Period |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff becomes insane after limitation starts | Time continues |
| Defendant acknowledges debt in writing | Limitation restarts |
| Plaintiff sues in a wrong court in good faith | Time excluded under Section 14 |
| Plaintiff delays due to ignorance of law | Time continues |
| Plaintiff receives wrong legal advice | No extension unless under Section 5 |
