The legal document emphasizes that the court must independently verify that a suit is not barred by limitation, regardless of whether the limitation defense has been raised by the parties (!) (!) . It clarifies that the limitation period is to be computed based on the date of each distinct breach, especially in cases involving successive or multiple breaches, rather than relying solely on the date of the final breach or last payment (!) (!) .

The document states that each delay or failure to perform constituting a breach gives rise to a separate and complete cause of action, which must be filed within a specified period from the date the breach occurs. If a suit is filed after this period, it is barred by limitation, even if the breach occurred earlier (!) (!) .

Furthermore, it discusses that extensions granted during the performance of a contract do not necessarily imply that claims for damages are waived or abandoned. The cause of action for damages arises at each breach, and the failure to initiate legal proceedings promptly can lead to presumption of abandonment of those claims (!) (!) .

The document also emphasizes that the effect of a notice under certain procedural provisions does not extend the limitation period for claims unrelated to debt or interest, such as damages for additional costs caused by delays (!) (!) .

Finally, it concludes that a suit filed after the expiry of the limitation period is liable to be dismissed, regardless of whether the limitation has been specifically raised as a defense. The court has a duty to ensure that the suit is within the prescribed time frame, and failure to do so results in dismissal of the claim (!) (!) (!) .