Skip to main content

Interpretation of the Supreme Court's order on Law of Limitation during the period of COVID-19

The lockdown placed into effect due to Coronavirus pandemic has severely affected the functioning of courts and tribunals across the country. Almost all high courts and tribunals across the country and Hon'ble Supreme Court have issued circulars restricting the functioning of courts to only ‘extremely urgent matters’, resulting in the closure of courts for most of the matters.
Many courts/tribunals have taken cognizance of issues that are likely to be faced because of the lockdown, including the matters that were yet to be filed and the matters where deadlines/limitation for filings would fall within the lockdown period.
The issue of limitation during the lockdown period has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, on March 23, 2020, whereby exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, passed an order in Suo motu Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 3 of 2020 on the issue of law of limitation and observed that:
“To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that the lawyers/ litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.”


Effect/Interpretation of Supreme Court's order:
There are two possible interpretations of the order passed by Supreme Court which I am going to discuss herein.
1.  The prescribed period of limitation shall be extended with effect from 15-03-2020 till further orders are passed by the Supreme Court once the lockdown is lifted. In that case, if the prescribed period of limitation to file any litigation had expired during the period mentioned in the order passed by Supreme Court, the said litigation shall be required to be filed on the day when the court reopens after the lockdown stands lifted. Such provision derives its origin from Section 4 of Limitation Act, which specifies the law relating to limitation in the event of "Courts being closed", though it does not specifically relates to lockdown in entire country due to pandemic.
2.  Second interpretation is that the limitation in whole, shall be extended with effect from 15-03-2020, in the manner that the timer of limitation would stop ticking from the time of passing of order, till the date when the same is allowed to start again by passing an order afresh. Meaning thereby, the period between 15-03-2020 i.e. stopping the limitation till further orders are passed by the Supreme Court, would be entirely excluded while computing the period of limitation and the timer of limitation would resume only from the day on which the further order is passed by Supreme Court.
       As such, the entire period of lockdown would be totally excluded while calculating the period of limitation, which in turn, shall compensate the litigants for the time lost due to lockdown. 
    For example, if 30 days' limitation to file a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act commences on 10th March, 2020, the timer of limitation would stop ticking on 15-03-2020 and would resume once the lockdown is lifted. Assuming the lockdown is lifted on 03-05-2020 as per the present situation, then the litigant would still have 25 days to file his complaint.

      In my opinion, the second construction is more realistic as this is the correct way to interpret the order passed by Supreme Court on March 23,2020, as any other construction would be detrimental to the rights of the litigants. In the event of any other interpretation, the litigants shall have to file large number of applications for condonation of delay, causing multiplicity of litigation and ultimately, delay in deciding the matters.
       The present situation is unprecedented and never-faced-before one, where not only the temples of justice are closed, but most of the facilities required for preparation of filing like printing, photocopy, stamping and other formalities etc. are practically unavailable due to the lockdown. Accordingly, only the second interpretation of order dated March 23, 2020, appears logical and in interest of not only justice but of public of India at large.

Chander Kalia is an eminent lawyer practicing at District Courts, Ludhiana. He may be reached at kalia.advocate@gmail.com



Location: 2620, New Tagore Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab 141001, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Law relating to WILLS in India

There is a saying “Where there is a Will, there is a way”. However, in absence of a properly-executed Will, the ways ahead may be too complicated to handle. Bigwig families in India like Ambanis, Birlas, and Ranbaxy brothers will not disagree that the road to succession is generally paved with ill Will chronicles. Will planning as part of financial management, has not assumed that much relevance in India what it should actually have. By making a Will one can assuredly rest that his properties devolve as desired and the rightful heirs receive their share. According to the Indian Succession Act 1925, a Will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator, with respect to his property which he/she desires to be put into effect after his/her death. Post death of a person, two scenarios arise in respect of his property; (a) as per his Will i.e. testamentary, or (b) according to the prevalent law of succession, when no Will is made. In the event of an individual dying intestate ...
1 comment
Read more

Interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC: Latest law on limitation for filing written statement

In this article, I shall interpret the law regarding filing of written statement, governed by order 8 Rule 1 CPC, with the aid of laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had settled the law that the provision to file Written Statement within 30 days (further extendable to 90 days) from date of service of summons, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Lawyers across the country, have been relying on the two judgments of Supreme Court "Kailash v. Nankhu" {( 2005 ) 4 SCC  480 }  and "Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India" {( 2005 ) 6 SCC  344 }  which hold that that procedural law is for effective administration of justice and is not above the justice. These judgments have been referred while filing applications to condone delay in filing Written Statement beyond the limit of 90 days as prescribed in CPC. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court on Sec.138 NI Act: No need for Complainant to produce Account Books during Criminal Trial.

The Supreme Court, in one of its recent judgement, has observed that the production of the account books/cash book may not be relevant in a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE In the present case, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court order in which the accused was convicted. The Appellate Court had held that the complainant didn't produce cash and account books to prove that the amount was due and payable by the accused. The complaint was that the accused purchased the pesticides on credit from the company and made part payments by issuing a cheque, which when presented for collection returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds". The High Court, on the other hand, restored the Trial Court judgement and observed that "the reason was given by the Lower Appellate Court that he didn't bring the cash book or order book, etc. could well be understood, if civil suit is tried"...
1 comment
Read more