The law of Limitation has its roots in the principle that the law aids the diligent and not the
Sec.27 of the Limitation Act
provides that when the period limited to a person for instituting a suit for
possession of any property has expired, his right to such property is
extinguished .
In
Harrynath Vs. Mother[1] sir
Richard Couch observed inter alia “ The intention of the law of limitation is
not to give a right where there is not one ( nor to extinguish a right where there is one) but to interpose a bar
after a certain period to a suit to enforce an existing right.”
The Limitation Act thus prescribes
period within which various suits, appeals or applications for respective
claims can be instituted in courts of law. If a party or claimant fails to do
so, it cannot claim any further remedy at law. But, having said that, it only
bars the judicial remedy, without extinguishing the right. It is only the
remedy which is barred if the suit is not brought within the specified time
limit, but the right continues to exist, and if therefore, there exists some
other procedure which allows such a right to be enforced by the Limitation Act
cannot bar it.
Under Sec. 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act,1872, a barred debt is good consideration for a fresh promise to pay the amount. When a debtor makes a payment without any direction as to how it is to be appropriated, the creditor has the right creditor has the right to appropriate it towards a barred debt. It has also been held that a creditor is entitled to recover the debt from the surety, even though a suit on it is barred against the principal debtor. When a creditor has a lien over goods by way of security for a loan, he can enforce the lien for obtaining satisfaction of the debt, even though an action thereon would be time barred.[2]
Post a Comment
If you have any doubt, pl. let me know