Every suit, appeal or application must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act; a suit filed after the limitation period is barred even if the claim is otherwise valid, and the court cannot extend the period unless a statutory provision permits it.
Explanation
Application examples
Scenario
Ravi lent ₹5 lakhs to Deepak on 15 March 2019 with repayment on 15 September 2019. Deepak defaulted. Ravi did not sue until 20 March 2023. The suit for recovery of money is now filed. Deepak raises a plea of limitation.
Analysis
The cause of action accrued on 15 September 2019 (the date repayment was due and the debt became recoverable). The applicable limitation period for a suit on a contract is three years. The period would expire on 15 September 2022. The suit was filed on 20 March 2023, which is more than five months after expiry. The plea of limitation is well-founded and no statutory exception (fraud, acknowledgment, part payment) appears to have been raised in the facts.
Outcome
The suit is barred by limitation and will be dismissed at the threshold, regardless of whether Deepak actually borrowed the money or whether Ravi would win on merits. The court has no power to entertain the suit unless Ravi can prove that Deepak made an acknowledgment of the debt or part payment after the cause of action accrued, which would restart the period.
Scenario
Meena was injured in a car accident on 10 January 2020. She suffered spinal injuries and could not walk for six months. She filed a suit for damages on 12 July 2023, claiming the injury caused her to lose wages and suffer pain. The defendant pleads limitation, arguing three years have passed since the accident.
Analysis
The cause of action in tort accrues on the date of injury, which is 10 January 2020. The limitation period for tort claims is three years. The period expired on 10 January 2023. The suit was filed on 12 July 2023, approximately six months after expiry. The defendant's plea is correct as a matter of limitation law. Meena's delay in realising the full extent of damages does not restart the period—the date of injury, not the date of discovery of all losses, governs accrual.
Outcome
The suit is barred by limitation. Meena cannot recover, even though her injuries were genuine and the defendant was negligent. The law places the burden on the injured person to sue promptly, not to wait until all losses are quantified. The bar operates without reference to the justice or injustice of the claim.
Scenario
Priya's father died on 1 February 2015. His will was executed in 2010 and left his entire estate to his second wife, excluding Priya (his daughter). Priya discovered the existence of the will only on 15 March 2023, when she found documents in a family archive. She filed a suit to challenge the will on 10 April 2023, claiming the will was procured by undue influence. The limitation period for suits to challenge a will is three years from the testator's death.
Analysis
The testator died on 1 February 2015, and three years would expire on 1 February 2018. The suit was filed on 10 April 2023, more than five years after the testator's death and well beyond the three-year period. The question is whether Priya's lack of knowledge of the will's existence extends the period. This is not a case of fraud (the defendant did not conceal the will from her deliberately); it is a case of her own ignorance. The Limitation Act provides that if a person is unaware of the existence of a document through no default of their own, the period may run from discovery, but this applies narrowly and Priya had constructive notice by virtue of the will being registered or deposited (depending on the will's nature). The statute does not extend the period merely because the plaintiff did not know.
Outcome
The suit is barred by limitation. Priya's late discovery of the will does not restart the period because the Limitation Act's exceptions do not apply to ignorance of the document's existence when the plaintiff could have discovered it with reasonable diligence (by inquiring into the father's affairs after his death). Her remedy, if any, was to challenge the will within three years of his death, when she could have sought documents from the probate records.
Scenario
Ajay bought a defective refrigerator from a shop on 1 August 2020. The refrigerator malfunctioned but still worked (sporadically). On 15 September 2023, the refrigerator caught fire and damaged Ajay's kitchen, causing injury and property loss. Ajay filed a suit for damages and breach of warranty on 20 October 2023. The shopkeeper pleads that the suit on warranty is barred by limitation, as it was filed more than three years after purchase.
Analysis
There are two potential causes of action here: one for breach of warranty (accruing at purchase on 1 August 2020) and one for tort/negligence (accruing at the date of injury/fire on 15 September 2023). The warranty claim would be barred if filed after 1 August 2023. The tort claim would be barred if filed after 15 September 2026. The suit was filed on 20 October 2023. The warranty claim is barred (more than three years from purchase). The tort claim is not barred (less than one year from injury). The court must dismiss the warranty portion but entertain the tort portion.
Outcome
The suit is partly barred by limitation. The claim for breach of warranty is barred because it accrued at the date of purchase and more than three years have elapsed. The claim for damages in tort is within limitation because it accrued only at the date of injury (not at purchase) and is filed within three years of injury. Ajay can recover on the tort claim but not on the warranty claim, demonstrating the critical importance of identifying the correct date of accrual.
How CLAT tests this
- A fact pattern presents a suit filed within the limitation period on the surface, but embeds a hidden accrual date (e.g., the true date the cause of action accrued is earlier than the plaintiff claims), requiring the examinee to correctly identify when the right to sue actually arose, not when the plaintiff realised the wrong.
- The examinee is asked whether a court can extend the limitation period with the consent of both parties or in the interest of justice—the trap is that the correct answer is 'no, the court cannot' (unless a statutory provision explicitly allows it), testing whether the examinee understands the absolute nature of the bar rather than assuming judicial discretion.
- A question conflates limitation with the equitable doctrine of laches, presenting a scenario where a plaintiff has delayed for years but within the statutory period, and asks if the suit can be dismissed—the examinee must distinguish between these doctrines and apply limitation law, not equitable principles of delay.
- A fact pattern describes multiple wrongs or harms occurring at different times (e.g., a continuing breach, or an injury that manifests gradually), and asks from which date limitation runs—the trap is that the examinee may assume the period runs from the first wrong rather than from the date the specific cause of action accrued or the injury materialised.
- The question introduces a statutory exception (fraud, acknowledgment, part payment, disability) but embeds facts that do not actually meet the exception's strict requirements, testing whether the examinee recognises that exceptions are narrowly construed and do not apply to mere delay or hardship.