Key Exclusions in Computing the Period of Limitation

Filing a lawsuit is not just about having a valid legal claim – it is also about filing it on time. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes fixed time periods within which a person must approach a court for relief. Miss that window, and the court is bound to dismiss the case, regardless of how strong the claim is. But Indian law is not blind to practical realities. There are situations where a litigant genuinely cannot file a suit within the prescribed period – because a court has stayed proceedings, the defendant is abroad, or the plaintiff was pursuing the wrong forum in good faith. To address these situations, Part III of the Limitation Act (Sections 12 to 24) lays down specific exclusions for the computation of the limitation period. These exclusions ensure that the clock does not run against a party during periods that were genuinely beyond their control.

Why exclusions in limitation law matter 🔗

The limitation period begins running from the date the cause of action arises. Under Section 9 of the Act, once time starts running, no subsequent disability or inability to sue will stop it – except where the Act itself provides otherwise. This makes the exclusion provisions under Sections 12 to 15 critically important. They carve out specific windows of time that are simply not counted when computing how long a party has taken to file a suit, appeal, or application. Missing even one applicable exclusion can mean the difference between a case being heard and being thrown out at the threshold.

Section 12 – Exclusion of time in legal proceedings 🔗

Section 12 is the starting point for computation rules. It applies to suits, appeals, and applications and identifies periods that must be excluded as a matter of course.

The starting day is excluded 🔗

Under Section 12(1), the day from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned is excluded from the count. So if a cause of action arises on 1st January, you begin counting from 2nd January. This is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in M/S. Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 1090), which affirmed the rule of excluding the first day and including the last day when computing time.

Time for obtaining certified copies 🔗

Section 12(2) and (3) are especially relevant for appeals. When computing the limitation period for an appeal, revision, or review, the day on which the judgment was delivered and the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the decree or order must be excluded. This is a practical safeguard – a party cannot be penalised for administrative delays in the court’s process of preparing and issuing copies. However, there is an important caveat: any delay caused by the court in preparing the decree before the application for a copy is even made will not be excluded.

Time to obtain a copy of an arbitral award 🔗

Section 12(4) extends the same logic to arbitration matters. When computing the period for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award, the time taken to obtain a copy of the award is excluded. This provision becomes relevant in commercial disputes handled through arbitration, which are common in cooperative and business law contexts.

Section 13 – Exclusion when leave to sue as a pauper is applied for 🔗

A person who cannot afford court fees may apply for permission to sue as a pauper under the Code of Civil Procedure. If that application is made and ultimately rejected, the time during which the applicant was genuinely pursuing the pauper application in good faith is excluded from the limitation period. The court, on receipt of the requisite court fees, will treat the suit as if the fees were paid from the beginning. This provision ensures that financial hardship does not permanently shut the courthouse door on a legitimate claimant.

Section 14 – Exclusion of time spent in a court without jurisdiction 🔗

This is one of the most practically significant exclusions. Section 14 provides that when computing the limitation period for a suit, the time during which the plaintiff was diligently prosecuting a prior civil proceeding in a court that lacked jurisdiction – or could not entertain the matter for some other analogous reason – must be excluded, provided the two proceedings involve the same matter in issue.

The key conditions that must be satisfied for Section 14 to apply are that the earlier proceeding must involve the same subject matter, the plaintiff must have been pursuing it with due diligence, and the earlier court must have been unable to entertain it due to defect of jurisdiction or a cause of similar nature. The word “bona fide” is crucial – the plaintiff must have genuinely believed the first forum was appropriate, not have filed there as a deliberate tactic.

What counts as a “defect of jurisdiction or cause of like nature”? 🔗

Courts have interpreted this phrase broadly. It covers situations where the court had no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, and has been extended to cases where a court was otherwise incompetent to try the matter. However, it does not apply to situations where the proceeding failed due to reasons entirely unrelated to the court’s competence, such as a technical procedural defect caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence.

Section 15 – Exclusion of time in certain other cases 🔗

Section 15 is the broadest of the exclusion provisions and covers several distinct situations under its five sub-sections.

Injunction or stay order – Section 15(1) 🔗

When a suit or an application for execution of a decree has been stayed by an injunction or court order, the entire period during which the injunction or stay order was in force is excluded. Importantly, both the day on which the injunction was issued and the day on which it was withdrawn are also excluded. So if a court order prevents a party from filing or proceeding with a suit, the limitation clock stops for that entire duration. This is a fundamental protection – a litigant cannot be penalised for inaction that was itself mandated by a court.

Notice period and government sanction – Section 15(2) 🔗

Several statutes in India require that before filing a suit, a party must give prior notice to the other side or obtain consent or sanction from the government or a statutory authority. Section 15(2) provides that the period of such mandatory notice, or the time taken to obtain the required governmental or statutory consent, is excluded from computation. For instance, suits against the government under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure require a two-month prior notice. Those two months would be excluded from the limitation period. The explanation to Section 15(2) clarifies that both the date of making the application for sanction and the date of receiving the order are included in the excluded period.

Exclusion when plaintiff is a minor or under legal disability – Section 15(3) and (4) 🔗

Where proceedings cannot be taken because the plaintiff is a minor or is otherwise legally disabled, or where the plaintiff’s right is contingent on the decision of another court or authority, certain periods are correspondingly excluded. These provisions work in conjunction with Sections 6 to 8, which deal with legal disabilities more broadly, to ensure comprehensive protection for those who cannot practically enforce their rights.

Defendant outside India – Section 15(5) 🔗

This sub-section addresses a specific and often overlooked situation: if the defendant is absent from India during the limitation period, the duration of that absence is excluded from computation. The rationale is straightforward – if the person to be sued is not within the reach of Indian courts, the plaintiff’s ability to meaningfully sue them is curtailed. The Delhi High Court, examining Section 15(5) in a case involving a defendant resident in Canada, held that while the exclusion does apply to defendants abroad, the party claiming the benefit must specifically argue and prove the exact period of the defendant’s absence with evidence. The court will not presume absence – it must be demonstrated.

How these exclusions work together in practice 🔗

It is important to understand that these exclusions are not automatically applied by the court. A litigant who seeks the benefit of any exclusion under Sections 12 to 15 must raise it explicitly and support it with the necessary evidence or documentation. The practical approach for anyone computing a limitation period is to first determine the starting date, apply the base limitation period from the Schedule to the Act, and then check each applicable exclusion provision to see whether any period should be carved out before counting up to the filing date.

Courts will not leniently extend these exclusions beyond their stated terms. The provisions must be read carefully, and each condition – good faith, due diligence, same subject matter, proven absence – must be satisfied. As the Law Commission of India noted in its 89th Report on the Limitation Act, these provisions were designed to protect litigants from losing their right to a remedy due to circumstances genuinely beyond their control – not to provide a backdoor for delay or negligence.

Key takeaways 🔗

Section 12 excludes the starting day, the day of judgment, and the time taken to obtain certified copies of decrees or arbitral awards. Section 13 protects those who applied in good faith to sue as paupers but were denied. Section 14 saves litigants who inadvertently filed in a court without jurisdiction, provided they acted diligently and in good faith. Section 15 covers a wide range of situations – injunctions, mandatory notice periods, government sanctions, legal disabilities, and the defendant’s absence from India. Together, these provisions form a carefully structured safety net. They ensure that the Limitation Act, while strict in its operation, is also fair in recognising the real-world obstacles that parties face when seeking legal remedies.

What do you think? If a plaintiff filed a suit in a wrong court entirely by mistake – without exercising any due diligence – should Section 14 still protect them from the bar of limitation? And do you think the requirement of proving a defendant’s absence from India under Section 15(5) places an unfair burden on plaintiffs in an increasingly globalised world?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1565?sam_handle=123456789/1362
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132971443/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1267250/
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1720337/
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/limitation-act-1963/
6. https://lawinsider.in/columns/limitation-periods-under-the-limitation-act-1963-a-practical-guide-for-lawyers
7. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec030b6ace9e8971cf36f1782aa982a7/uploads/2025/04/2025042434.pdf