A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- Defendant-respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords -- There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession.

(Para 9.4)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 Sch-I -- Adverse possession -- Plaintiff-appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale deed on 21.01.1966 -- Dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant-respondents would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior to it -- Suit was filed within the period of 12 years in May, 1975 -- Period of 12 years for perfecting rights on the basis of adverse possession would commence from 1966 and the suit having been filed in 1975 was well within time -- Even if it is assumed that the defendant respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, their possession could not have been adverse even to the Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse.

(Para 8-9.5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Land acquisition case – Compensation – Limitation -- Whether taking over of possession of the land way back in the year 1969 disentitles the petitioners from claiming compensation – Held, no amount of delay can come in the way of the petitioners to approach this Court for enforcement of their constitutional right to property – Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award already passed by the Collector – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 14-23)

B. Constitution of India, Article 31, 300A, 370 – Right to property – Delay in claiming compensation -- Right to property was a fundamental right in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, as such, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have waived their right to property – At present, the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- Even if the right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right, still then it continues to be a legal and constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law -- Denial of this right to a person constitutes a continuing cause of action and, therefore, no amount of delay and laches would extinguish the right to property of a person.

(Para 18)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession by State – Permissibility of -- State cannot claim adverse possession in respect of the property belonging to private persons -- Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the property in question has vested in them because of their long possession over the same.

(Para 19)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 – Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance -- Limitation -- Period of limitation in a suit for specific performance of contract when a specific date is fixed for performance is three years and if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

(Para 11)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 55 -- Agreement to sell -- Compensation for the breach of any contract -- Limitation -- Period of limitation is three years when the contract is broken or when there are successive breaches when the breach is in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or when it ceases -- There is concealment of material fact on the part of appellants/ defendants that their land was already under the master plan thus covered under R Zone, Green Belt and National Highway – Respondent/ plaintiff came to know about this condition subsequently and period of limitation will start from the said contingency.

(Para 11)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 17 – Limitation – Fraud – Suit for possession/ joint land -- Judgment and decree of 1982 – Challenged in 2014 -- It is a positive case of the plaintiffs that they got the knowledge of the alleged fraudulent decree in the year 2013 -- Defendants failed to lead the evidence to prove that the plaintiffs had prior knowledge of the decree --  Both the Courts, on appreciation of evidence, had found that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation -- Plaintiffs are co-sharers/ co-owners with the defendants, can be granted a decree for joint possession and can apply for delivery of the actual possession after the land is partitioned – Decree modified.

(Para 5-13)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197, 468(2)(c), 470(3), 482 – Complaint under Insecticides Act -- Limitation – Cognizance of complaint -- Sanction Period consumed for obtaining the consent of the State Government to launch the prosecution is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period -- If period of 5 months and 17 days is excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, the complaint instituted after 5 years, 6 days from the date of commencement of limitation is beyond limitation period – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed for the reasons that complaint itself is not maintainable, being barred by limitation.

(Para 12-22)

Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1982 -- Staff Accountability Policy 2011, Clause 9.2 --  Dismissal of Bank employee -- Charge-sheet after 4 years -- Limitation – Respondent bank issued charge sheet without alleging fraud or mala fide, thus, extended period of limitation could not be invoked -- Bank was bound to initiate proceedings within four years from the date of alleged offence – Dismissal order set aside – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 1, 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 3(2) – Death of plaintiff – Limitation -- Abatement of suit --  Since there is an amendment made to Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (Amendment by High Court of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh), limitation period of 90 days would not be applicable -- Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application and has brought on record the legal representatives of deceased/ plaintiff no.1 -- No error in the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference by High Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Earnest money of Rs.1,000/- was paid out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- -- Appellants was to apply for permission to sell in 8 days of ATS – From the ninth (9th) day onwards a right accrued to the respondents to move Court -- ATS is dated 31.07.1975 and the suit was filed on 01.01.1981 -- Limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years – Suit dismissed -- Lump-sum refund quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-.

(Para 5-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 59 -- Time barred claim – Amendment of plaint -- By amendment plaintiff wanted to challenge the relinquishment deed for which the limitation is 03 years – Relinquishment deed is dated 25.11.2014, application for amendment filed on 17.03.2020 – As a general rule, the Court should decline amendment if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of application – Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the amendment – In revision impugned order set aside.

(Para 1, 7-11)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Revision – Delay of 854 day – Condonation of delay – District Forum allowed the complaint directing the HUDA to issue the allotment letter – Appeal dismissed by State Commission – HUDA had taken a decision that the Revision Petition not be filed – When notice was issued to the HUDA in the execution proceedings, the Revision Petition was filed with a delay of 854 days – NCDRC was of the opinion that such delay cannot be condoned – No reason to interfere with the impugned order.

(Para 2-5)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Transfer of property -- Sale deed – Non-entering of  mutation – Effect of -- Mutation is merely an entry in the revenue record, which reflects the factum of transfer of property, however, the ownership is transferred by way of sale deed -- Hence, failure on the part of the plaintiff to get the land mutated in his favour would not be relevant.

(Para 7)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, Section 27 – Suit for possession – Limitation -- Owner can file a suit for possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 till the time, the defendant proves his title by way of the adverse possession.

(Para 8)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Suit for possession -- Sale deed – Purchase of residential plot -- Requirement of the plaintiff to file a suit for partition – Property is not an agricultural land -- It is in the form of residential plots -- Plaintiff as well as defendant have purchased the specific plots -- Plaintiff has claimed possession of plot, which has been decreed by both the Courts below -- No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Delay of 52 day in appeal – Condonation of delay -- Rights in immovable property -- When the parties were litigating with regard to the right over immovable properties, the substantial rights were to be decided between the parties -- Delay could have been condoned and the appeal could have been decided on merits -- Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when the delay was not inordinate is not justified -- High Court was also not justified in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that there was no question of law -- Delay in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court condoned – Matter remitted back to Lower Appellate Court.

(Para 3-8)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 -- Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Delay of 5190 days in appeal – Condonation of delay -- By applying the principle of parity, the land owners/applicants being similarly situated, are entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period they failed to approach the Court after the decision in the reference Court – Delay of 5190 days in filing the appeal condoned -- Appellants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal i.e. 5190 days.

(Para 1, 2)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Proceedings u/s 47A of Indian Stamp Act -- Limitation -- Sale deed executed in 2011, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2020, after about more than 9 years – Held, proceedings can be initiated within 3 years from the execution of the sale deed – Proceedings initiated clearly barred by limitation and could not have been initiated – Petition accepted, impugned order as well as the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11, 12(2), 18 -- Acquisition of land – Award of Collector -- Delay in Reference – Dismissal on limitation -- Power of Reference Court -- Reference u/s 18 of the 1894 Act, involves substantial rights of the landowners, the same can only be declined on the point of limitation, in case, the Reference Court finds that the landowner was either present or represented before the Land Acquisition Collector, at the time of announcement of the award or notice u/s 12(2) of the 1894 Act was ever served upon him, informing him about the contents of the award.

(Para 9)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator -- Limitation -- Cause of action -- If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there -- In such a case, it is not open to a party to sit tight and not to file an application for settlement of dispute of his right, which had been infringed, within the time provided by the Limitation Act, and, allow his right to be extinguished by lapse of time, and thereafter, to wait for another cause of action and then file an application u/s 11 of the Act 1996 -- In such a case, such an application would mean an application for revival of a right, which had long been extinguished under the Act 1963 and is, therefore, dead for all purposes -- Such proceedings would not be maintainable and would obviously be met by the plea of limitation under Article 137 of the Act 1963.

(Para 58)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation -- Cause of action – Extension of limitation -- Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the wrongful encashment of bank guarantee vide letter dated 16.02.2016 and for wrongful imposition of liquidated damages -- Respondent on 26.09.2016, deducted the amount towards recovery of the liquidated damages -- Requisite amount was credited into the Government account -- This was the end of the matter -- To say that even thereafter, the petitioner kept negotiating with the respondent in anticipation of some amicable settlement would not save the period of limitation -- When the bank guarantee came to be encashed in the year 2016 and the requisite amount stood transferred to the Government account that was the end of the matter -- This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation.

(Para 59-62)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation -- Cause of action – Negotiation will not postpone cause of action -- Negotiations may continue even for a period of ten years or twenty years after the cause of action had arisen -- Mere negotiations will not postpone the “cause of action” for the purpose of limitation -- The Legislature has prescribed a limit of three years for the enforcement of a claim and this statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating.

(Para 63)

Covid-19 – Limitation -- Where the limitation of a case was expiring during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, limitation in such a situation was to start from 01.03.2022 and a period of 90 days was to be granted to file the necessary application/appeal etc. -- Revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 12.10.2020 -- Application for restoration was filed on 13.12.2021, dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2022 – Orders fall in the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 -- Dismissal of the restoration application on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner is against law and deserves to be set aside – Order set aside, Commissioner directed to decide the application for restoration afresh after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law. Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 (SC) relied.

(Para 5-7)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(5), 34 -- Arbitration award – Limitation to file objections --  Ex-parte award on 13.6.2008, objections filed on 2.6.2009 – Objections dismissed as time barred – Limitation to file objections starts from the date of receipt of the award -- Impugned order passed without recording a finding that signed copy of the award was delivered to the appellant – Order set aside, matter remitted back to decide objections afresh.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 6A -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Counter claim for possession -- Adverse possession can be claimed only against true owner -- Plaintiff having taken the plea of adverse possession could not have denied the title of defendants -- Plaintiff having failed to prove issue No.1 (adverse possession) in his favour, was bound to fail in his pursuits to contest the claim put forth by defendants No.1 and 2 by way of counter claim.

(Para 4, 10, 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Res-judicata -- Finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove acquisition of title over the suit land by way of adverse possession will operate as res judicata between the same parties in all other proceedings in which the same issue arises.

(Para 9)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Onus to proof -- It is trite law that once the title of the property has been upheld namely a finding has been recorded by a judgment and decree in the name of plaintiff in an earlier suit, in such circumstances, the onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lay on the defendant.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Resjudicata -- In the earlier round of litigation direction to the defendant-respondents was to remove at their own expenses the L.T. pole installed in the courtyard of the plaintiff-appellant within a month -- However, as per the undertaking, it was made clear that the plaintiff-appellant would not be entitled to any compensation for the transformer and poles erected in his property – Plaintiff-appellant wanted to reagitate the matter which is directly and substantially the same as in the previous litigation -- Plaintiff-appellant not able to convince that the findings in the earlier round of litigation would not operate as res judicata -- There is extra-ordinary delay of 2936 days in filing the appeal for which no cogent reasons are forthcoming – Appeal dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

(Para 6-8)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 -- Execution of decree – Limitation of 12 years – Cause of action -- Limitation period would commence only with the decree becoming enforceable and thus is capable of being executed -- Compromise decree dated 26.04.1960 -- Cause of action arise on 31.03.1994, period of limitation will begin only with effect from 31.03.1994 -- Execution Application made on 17.07.1995 held to be within Limitation.

(Para 9-11)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(a)(i), 27(d) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 469 -- Complaint after expiry of limitation period of three years – Quashing of complaint  --- Maximum punishment would be for a period of two years -- Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. bars the concerned Court from taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – Report of the Laboratory came into the hands of the Drugs Inspector on 02.07.2015 and thus, the limitation expired on 01.07.2018 while complaint was filed on 05.02.2019 i.e. approximately after 7 months when period of limitation was over – Complaint and all other consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – No evidence by defendant No.2-appellant to prove that her possession was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, i.e. peaceful, open and continuous -- A person seeking to establish his adverse possession has to show that his possession is adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner -- It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period – Defendant No.2-appellant failed to lead any substantial evidence to prove her plea of adverse possession -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Arbitration award – Objection after 120 days – Condonation of delay -- Application u/s 34 of the Act beyond the period of 120 days i.e. 90 days of limitation and 30 days period -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable -- Delay beyond 30 days after expiry of limitation period cannot be condoned.

(Para 6)

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Written statement filed after one year – Application for placing on record rejected -- Revisional jurisdiction – By Sec.16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure stands amended, which mandates that the defendant(s) has to file the written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, failing which the defendant(s) right to file the written statement will stand forfeited and the Court shall not accept the written statement on record – Held, there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-11)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Decree – Delay in filing appeal – Condonation of delay -- Limitation would run from the date of passing of the decree and not from any date prior to passing of the same – Seeker of condonation of delay is not required to explain the period of his absence during the trial, what is required is the period of delay which runs as per the Limitation Act and in this case the period of limitation had started from the date of decree, therefore, any delay after explaining of such limitation was only to be explained by the appellant.

(Para 15)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 56(2) -- Arrears of electricity bill – Limitation of 2 years -- Connection of the defendant was declared PDCO on 18.3.2010 ordered to be disconnected permanently vide order dated 18.3.2010 -- Thereafter, on 22.3.2010 an amount of Rs.87,972/- has been shown outstanding against the defendant and no further electricity supplied to the defendant after 18.3.2010 – Trial court dismissed the suit by holding that limitation to file the suit shall be counted from 18.3.2010 when the connection of the defendant was declared PDCO and when this amount became due and the suit has been filed on 7.5.2012 i.e. beyond the limitation period of two years -- Ld. First Appellate Court upheld the order – High court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts returned by the Courts below -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-18)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, 113 -- Suit for declaration and possession -- Limitation – Limitation to file a suit for possession on the basis of title is twelve years -- Declaratory relief for title of the property is sine qua non for seeking possession over it -- The former, therefore, cannot be held to take away the essential characteristics of a suit for possession -- One of the reliefs sought of declaration will not mean that the prescribed period of limitation will not be applicable.

(Para 2, 8-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 149 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 4 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay in appeal – Condonation of delay – Insufficient funds for court fee – Ground of -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay -- It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 2(4), 118 – Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Private company is not an ‘agriculturist’ -- Approval was not given by the State Government and then the Company assigned his right to the plaintiff who thereafter filed the suit for specific performance -- No specific clause in the “Agreement to Sell”, which says that in case the purchaser fails to obtain required permission from the State Government, it could assign its rights to an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh and the seller therefore would not have any objection in executing the Sale deed in favour of such an assignee -- No question of granting a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff – Dismissal of suit upheld.

(Para 11-16)

C. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 118 -- Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings -- Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(Para 17)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 298 days in filing LPA – Condonation of delay – Clerk of the earlier counsel who prepared the writ petition misplaced the files – Application supported by an affidavit of the legal representative of the deceased workman -- Sufficient ground made out to condone the delay – Delay condoned.

(Para 1-4)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-B, 25-F -- Retrenchment of workman – Reinstatement – Right of – Workman in service for brief period of 240 days – Reinstatement would not be the correct relief -- Grant of compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs upheld.

(Para 8,9)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Limitation for mutation -- Section 34 of the Act, 1887 stipulates that the Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him of any person acquiring rights or title in any property of the concerned revenue estate by virtue of inheritance, purchase, mortgage or otherwise and a report regarding the same has been made to him -- Same action can be taken suo moto also on acquiring knowledge -- He is also required to enquire into the correctness of entries in the register of mutations and make such order as thought fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of rights -- It is, thus, evident that no limitation has been prescribed for making an entry in the register of mutation -- Thus, the argument of limitation is liable to be rejected outright.

(Para 6)

B. Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1954 (18 of 1954), Section 2(h) -- Occupancy tenant -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner was recorded as occupancy tenant at the time of commencement of the Act nor is there any decree or order of any Court or authority of competent jurisdiction granting him the right of occupancy -- Thus, the petitioner is not governed by the definition and cannot claim to possess the status of an occupancy tenant by operation of law.

(Para 10)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 204 – Cheque bounce complaint – Cognizance by Magistrate -- Issue of process – Recalling of -- After completion of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no provision for reverting back and question the taking of cognizance and dismissing the same.

(Para 1, 8, 9, 17)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce complaint – Delay in complaint – Condonation of delay -- Ample power has been given by the legislature by inserting the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act to protect the person who has given money from technicalities -- Proper explanation was given in the petition of complaint supported by medical papers which was overlooked by the Ld. Magistrate – Order passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate set aside/quashed -- Criminal Proceedings in complaint restored -- Petitioner is permitted to file an application for condonation of delay before the trial court and if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the same on its own merits.

(Para 13-29)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- Adverse possession – Permissive possession -- Hostile possession -- A person in permissible possession over the suit land cannot become owner only on the basis of long possession -- However, in case the said person starts proclaiming to be owner to the knowledge of the true owner, even if his possession in the beginning was permissive, it will become adverse, the moment he starts proclaiming to be in hostile possession.

(Para 25)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- Adverse possession – Permissive possession -- Hostile possession -- Sale by attorney when owner already died – Moment the sale deeds in favour of defendants executed by the attorney of the owner, became null and void, on account of the fact that owner had already expired, the possession of the defendants became hostile, as they no longer could be stated to be in permissive possession on the basis of the prior mortgage -- Defendants were still continuing to be in possession on the basis of these null & void sale deeds, they perfected their title on the expiry of statutory period of limitation, as their possession was open, continuous, hostile and adverse to the title to the true owners/natural heirs owner.

(Para 26)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 33(3), 34 -- Correction in award – Limitation to file objection -- Starting point for the limitation in case of suo-moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party.

(Para 2)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 469 -- Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 – Quashing of FIR -- Excise matter – Limitation -- Maximum sentence prescribed 2 years -- Trial Court can take cognizance within 3 years -- Held, prosecution was required to file challan within three years whereas a period of 08 years has expired, however, till date challan has not been presented -- In view of mandate of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the petition allowed and FIR quashed.

(Para 2, 7-9)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Notice without Domestic incident report -- Domestic incident report is not mandatory -- Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity by issuing notice to the petitioner without waiting for the report of Protection Officer.

(Para 13)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 127 -- Acquittal u/s 498A IPC – Award of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Acquittal u/s 498A IPC will not create a bar for his wife to seek relief under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Payment of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. or other application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. will not effect the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the respondent can claim maintenance under the one case subject to adjustment of maintenance already paid by him.

(Para 14, 15)

C. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468 – Application u/s 12 of DV Act, 2005 after more than 8 years – Limitation -- Violation of any order passed under the DV Act is punishable u/s 13 of D.V. Act, 2005 -- Mere filing of complaint u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act not barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C -- This section will come into operation when any order passed u/s 12 of the Act is violated – Petition seeking quashing of complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 dismissed. Kamatchi’s case 2022(2) L.A.R. 222 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16975 relied.

(Para 16-19)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Acquisition of land – Delay in reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act – Limitation – Condonation of delay -- Limitation for making reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable – Present case is not the case of condoning the delay in exercise of powers u/s 5 of the Limitation Act -- Appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the SLP vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the SLP i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners filed reference application u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 – Impugned judgment and order dismissing the writ petition/reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 as barred by limitation quashed and set aside -- Matter remitted to the reference court to decide the reference on merits.

(Para 10)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) – State appeal against acquittal – Leave to appeal -- Delay of 303 days -- Condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of lethargic working of Government -- Delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot be mechanically condoned, in the absence of 'sufficient cause' for delay -- No explanation put forth for explaining the delay for filing the application -- Reason given is that the file moved at a leisure pace -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed -- Consequently, the application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed as time barred.

(Para 5-8)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Inception of -- Adverse possession must be hostile to the title of the owner and must begin with his wrongful dispossession -- Essential ingredient to establish the plea of adverse possession is that the person taking that plea must admit to the title of the owner.

(Para 8)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Permissive possession -- Defendants claimed adverse possession over the suit land, however, in written statement pleaded that their predecessors-in-interest came in possession of the suit land by an oral family settlement which took place with the fore-fathers of the plaintiffs, hence evidently they are implying permissive possession of the suit land – Possession did not commence with the wrongful dispossession of the plaintiffs, which is one of the pre-requisites and essential ingredients to maintain the plea of adverse possession -- Adverse and permissive possession are mutually inconsistent with each other.

(Para 8)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition not entertained – Alternative remedy of appeal initiated -- Exclusion of period -- Appellant is entitled to ask for exclusion of the period in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 -- Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay -- Period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned -- Period from the date of filing of the writ petition on 24.02.2018 and the date on which it was dismissed as not entertained viz. 07.03.2018, should have been excluded.

(Para 3)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 173 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Appeal by owner -- Delay of 376 days – Condonation of delay -- Application is silent as to when the applicant-appellant contacted his counsel to know about the date of award or when he got the appeal prepared -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed.

(Para 6)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 39, 192, 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Expiry of registration of transport vehicle -- Recovery rights from owner -- If the vehicle is driven/ used without a valid registration, it amounts to violation of Section 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which is a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy -- Tribunal did not commit any error in granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company.

(Para 9-13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14, Rule 2(1)(2)(b) -- Issue of limitation – Preliminary issue – Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts -- Provisions under Order XIV Rule 2(1) and Rule 2(2)(b) permit to deal with and dispose of a suit in accordance with the decision on the preliminary issue.

(Para 18, 26)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 – Execution of decree – Limitation -- Article 136 of Limitation Act applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed.

(Para 20)

C. Pleadings – Misquoting/ not mentioning of provision -- Misquoting or non-quoting of a provision by itself will not make an order bad so long as the relevant enabling provision is in existence and it was correctly applied though without specifically mentioning it.

(Para 25)

A. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7,9,61 – Liability acknowledged in 2013 -- Pendency of Winding up proceedings under Companies Act 1956 in High Court – Limitation for proceedings u/s 7 and 9 of the IBC --  On 30th March 2018, the Respondent filed petition u/s 9 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the NCLT -- Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejected the application as barred by limitation – Respondent appealed to the NCLAT u/s 61 of the IBC -- By the impugned judgment and order, the NCLAT set aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) rejecting the application of the Respondent u/s 9 of the IBC and has remitted the case to the Adjudicating Authority for admission after notice to the parties. Held,

--       For the purpose of limitation, the relevant date is the date on which the right to sue accrues which is the date when a default occurs.

--       Pendency of the proceedings in a parallel forum, invoked by the Respondent, is not sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application u/s 9 of the IBC -- By the time the application was filed, the claim had become barred by limitation.

--       Madras High Court neither suffered from any defect of jurisdiction to entertain the winding up application nor was unable to entertain the winding up application for any other cause of a like nature – Limitation for initiation of winding up proceedings in the Madras High Court stopped running on the date on which the Winding Up petition was filed -- Initiation of proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT u/s 7 of the IBC -- A claim may not be barred by limitation -- It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation.

Impugned order of the NCLAT is unsustainable in law, set aside  -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 6-30)

B. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Condonation of delay -- NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation -- Condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation -- Condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause -- Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute “sufficient cause” or not would be dependent upon facts of each case -- There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the Appellant/applicant for the delay in taking steps.

(Para 14-16)

C. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7, 9 – Proceedings u/s 7 and 9 of the IBC – Relevant date for limitation -- Date of enforcement of the IBC and/or the date on which an application could have first been filed under the IBC are not relevant in computation of limitation -- It would be absurd to hold that the CIRP could be initiated by filing an application u/s 7 or Section 9 of the IBC, within three years from the date on which an application under those provisions of the IBC could have first been made before the NCLT even though the right to sue may have accrued decades ago -- What is material is the date on which the right to sue accrues, and whether the cause of action continuous.

(Para 17, 18)

D. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7, 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14, 18 -- Proceedings u/s 7 and 9 of the IBC – Exclusion of time – Acknowledgment of liability – Fresh period of limitation -- It is now well settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the IBC as far as may be -- Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation in certain circumstances – Similarly, u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, an acknowledgment of present subsisting liability, made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing of a fresh period of limitation, from the date on which the acknowledgment is signed -- However, the acknowledgment must be made before the period of limitation expires -- Proceedings in good faith in a forum which lacks jurisdiction or is unable to entertain for like nature may save limitation.

 (Para 23-25)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cause of action – Time barred complaint -- Delay of 7 days in complaint – Cognizance by Magistrate -- No petition filed for condoning the delay -- It is settled law that the Magistrate is forbidden from taking cognizance of the offence if the complaint was not filed within one month of the date of which the cause of action arose -- Hence, summoning order and revisional order confirming the cognizance taken by Magistrate are erroneous and  contrary to law, set aside.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 6 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Recovery of possession – Limitation -- Suit beyond six months -- As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, he was dispossessed from the suit property on 28.04.2009 and thereafter, FIR was registered 08.05.2010 u/s 447/448/380 IPC – Instant suit came to be instituted on 02.02.2013 i.e. much beyond the prescribed period of six months – Trial Court dismissed the suit -- No error in the impugned order passed by the ld. trial Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 -- Long years living as husband and wife – Birth of child – Presumption of -- It is well settled that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock -- Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act -- Although, the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 18 – Partition suit – Preliminary Decree – Final Decree – Role of -- Preliminary decree declares the rights or shares of the parties to the partition -- Once the shares have been declared and a further inquiry still remains to be done for actually partitioning the property and placing the parties in separate possession of the divided property, then such inquiry shall be held and pursuant to the result of further inquiry, a final decree shall be passed.

(Para 29, 30)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 18 – Preliminary decree -- Final decree – Limitation – Nature of -- Final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time -- There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings -- Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of a final decree and, any of the defendants can also move application for the purpose -- By mere passing of a preliminary decree the suit is not disposed of.

(Para 31)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 18 -- Preliminary decree – Final decree – Directions issued to Trial Courts -- Once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial Court, the court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suo motu -- After passing of the preliminary decree, the Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC -- The courts should not adjourn the matter sine die -- There is also no need to file a separate final decree proceedings -- In the same suit, the court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree – Suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn – Directions given to Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings.

(Para 32, 33)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Deficient stamp duty – Limitation -- Reference was made by the Sub-Registrar on receipt of the audit report -- Petitioner was called upon to appear by notice which was well beyond the period of three years – Additional amount of Rs.3,12,193/- along with interest @12% towards deficient stamp duty ordered to be paid – Held, even if Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act permits Collector to issue notice suo motu, it has to be done within a period of three years from the date of registration of the instrument -- Impugned orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector and Commissioner quashed -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 1, 9-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 1 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay of 318 days in preferring appeal – Condonation of delay – Contended that out of the delay of 318 days, 126 days' delay satisfactorily explained, qua the remaining 192 days the delay had not been entirely explained, however, it had been caused due to the sanction and approval from the quarters concerned not being given in time on account of the long departmental procedure – Held, Courts should adopt a liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented approach and a litigant should not be made to suffer for the misdemeanour or inaction on the part of his counsel – Appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay -- Impugned order set aside with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 1-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 198), Order 7 Rule 11 – Limitation – Application for rejection of plaint – On a plain reading of the plaint it cannot be inferred or deduced that the suit is barred by limitation – On the face of it, the averments made in the plaint make out a case, within limitation, against the defendant-petitioners – Application dismissed.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 198), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Scope of – Exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are drastic ones and a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint on a plain reading along with documents discloses a cause of action – No other document, be it a written statement or application for rejection of the plaint, can be looked into at this stage.

(Para 8)