Salient features which have been settled by the superior Courts for the purposes of interpretation of the law of limitation;

 PLD 2016 SC 872

Limitation Act 1908---

----Ss. 3 & 5 & Preamble---Law of limitation, interpretation of---Salient features of interpretation of the law of limitation listed.

Following are the salient features which have been settled by the superior Courts for the purposes of interpretation of the law of limitation;

(i) The law of limitation was a statute of repose, designed to quieten title and to bar stale and water-logged disputes and was to be strictly complied with. Statutes of limitation by their very nature were strict and inflexible. Law of limitation does not confer a right; it only regulates the rights of the parties. Such a regulatory enactment could not be allowed to extinguish vested rights or curtail remedies, unless all the conditions for extinguishment of rights and curtailment of remedies were fully complied with in letter and spirit. There was no scope in law of limitation for any equitable or ethical construction. Justice, equity and good conscience did not override the law of limitation. Object of law of limitation was to prevent stale demands and so it ought to be construed strictly;

(ii) The hurdles of limitation could not be crossed under the guise of any hardships or imagined inherent discretionary jurisdiction of the court. Ignorance, negligence, mistake or hardship did not save limitation, nor does poverty of the parties;

(iii) It was salutary to construe exceptions or exemptions to a provision in a statute of limitation rather liberally while a strict construction was enjoined as regards the main provision. For when such a provision was set up as a defence to an action, it had to be clearly seen if the case came strictly within the ambit of the provision;

(iv) There was absolutely no room for the exercise of any imagined judicial discretion vis-à-vis interpretation of a provision, whatever hardship may result from following strictly the statutory provision. There was no scope for any equity. The court could not claim any special inherent equity jurisdiction;

(v) Statute of limitation instead of being viewed in an unfavourable light, as an unjust and discreditable defence, should receive such support from courts of justice as would have made it what it was intended to be, a statute of repose. Plea of limitation could not be deemed as an unjust or discreditable defence. There was nothing morally wrong and there was no disparagement to the party pleading it. It was not a mere technical plea as it was based on sound public policy and no one should be deprived of the right he had gained by the law. It was indeed often a righteous defence. The court had to only see if the defence was good in law and not if it was moral or conscientious;

(vi) The intention of the law of limitation was not to give a right where there was not one, but to interpose a bar after a certain period to a suit to enforce an existing right.

(vii) The law of limitation was an artificial mode conceived to terminate justiciable disputes. It therefore had to be construed strictly with a leaning to benefit the suitor;

(viii) Reading of the Preamble and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 showed that the fundamental principle was to induce the claimants to be prompt in claiming rights. Unexplained delay or laches on the part of those who were expected to be aware and conscious of the legal position and who had facilities for proper legal assistance could hardly be encouraged or countenanced.