Article 123 vs Section 5 of the Limitation Act: Understanding Abatement in Indian Courts

In the fast-paced world of litigation, missing deadlines can spell disaster for a case. One common pitfall is abatement, the automatic termination of a suit or appeal due to a party's death if legal representatives (LRs) aren't substituted timely. A frequent question arises: What is the Difference Between Article 123 of Limitation Act and Section 5 of Limitation Act? While Article 123 relates to specific timelines (often contextualized with nearby Articles 120 and 121 for substitution and abatement), Section 5 offers a lifeline through condonation of delay. This post breaks it down, drawing from key judicial precedents and statutory provisions.

Overview of Abatement and Limitation Periods

Abatement occurs under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) when a party dies, and LRs are not brought on record within prescribed limits. The Limitation Act, 1963 sets strict timelines:

• Article 120: 90 days from the date of death to substitute LRs of a deceased plaintiff, appellant, defendant, or respondent. If missed, the suit abates automatically 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 371 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 406.
• Article 121: 60 days from abatement to apply to set it aside 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 406 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 64.

Article 123, in the broader appeal context, underscores fixed periods, but courts often reference Articles 120/121 for abatement scenarios. These are mandatory periods—no automatic extension without further action. As one judgment notes, Abatement takes place automatically after expiry of the period of limitation 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 305.

In contrast, Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows courts to condone delays for sufficient cause, applying to applications beyond these periods, such as setting aside abatement after 150 days from death 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 371 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1292.

Key Differences: Strict Timelines vs. Discretionary Condonation

| Aspect | Article 123 (with 120/121) | Section 5 ||--------|----------------------------|-----------|| Nature | Fixed limitation periods (e.g., 90/60 days) | Discretionary condonation for delay || Application | Substitution (Art 120), set aside abatement (Art 121) | Any delay in appeals, suits, applications if sufficient cause shown || Trigger | From date of death/abatement | Beyond prescribed period || Outcome if Missed | Automatic abatement, suit fails | Possible extension if court satisfied |

Under Order XXII Rule 3(1), courts bring LRs on record upon application; Rule 4(3) mandates abatement if delayed 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 321. But Order XXII Rule 9 permits setting aside abatement for sufficient cause, where Section 5 principles apply 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 321.

The provisions of Order 22 Rule 9(3) of CPC clearly state that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to the application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of CPC 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 541. This highlights Section 5's role as a remedial tool.

When Section 5 Comes into Play: Judicial Insights

Courts liberally interpret Section 5 for abatement matters, emphasizing procedural fairness. In a partition suit appeal, failure to substitute led to abatement, but the court stressed, The provisions of Order 22 of CPC are procedural and should not curtail the substantial rights of the parties 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 541.

• Delay Condonation Examples:
• Application filed one year late due to unawareness of death: Condemned as sufficient cause, abatement set aside 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 314.
• Being unaware about death sufficient and reasonable reason to condone delay of one year 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 314.

• In execution proceedings, no abatement under Order XXII Rule 12, so no limitation for impleading 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 1003 2009 0 Supreme(Ker) 1067.

• Rejections: If no condonation petition accompanies substitution after limitation, applications fail 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 541. In absence of any such petition, by virtue of the provisions contained in Order XXII Rule 4(3)... a Suit / Appeal abates 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 305.

Another case clarified: Art.120... stipulates a period of 90 days... As per Art.121... limitation of sixty days—delayed petitions barred without Section 5 1993 0 Supreme(Mad) 508.

Under Article 227 Constitution and CPC Section 151, courts set aside erroneous rejections where Section 5 petitions were overlooked, allowing substitution if knowledge of death was recent 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 585.

Exceptions to Abatement

Not all deaths trigger abatement:- If a party dies after hearing but before judgment, no abatement 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 371.- LRs already on record: No issue 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1292.- Non-contesting defendants: Exemption possible under Order XXII Rule 4(4), else abatement 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 305.- Execution proceedings: No abatement per Rule 12 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 1003.

Practical Steps to Avoid Pitfalls

1. Monitor party health/status closely.
2. File substitution within 90 days (Art 120).
3. If abated, apply to set aside within 60 days (Art 121), with Section 5 if delayed.
4. Document sufficient cause (e.g., lack of knowledge) with affidavits.

Courts assess bona fides: Undisputedly, defendant 3-Motilal Singh had died on 9.2.2016 and the application... were filed on 10.2.2017—dismissed as barred, stressing timelines 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 314.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Article 123 (aligned with 120/121) enforces rigid deadlines to ensure expeditious justice, while Section 5 provides flexibility for genuine delays in abatement scenarios. Typically, strict adherence prevents complications, but Section 5 offers rescue when justified. Always consult a legal expert for case-specific advice—this is general information, not tailored counsel.

Key Takeaways:- 90 days to substitute; 60 days to set aside abatement.- Section 5 applicable per Order XXII Rule 9(3) 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 541.- Procedural rules protect rights, not penalize 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 541.- Act promptly to safeguard litigation.

Stay proactive in litigation timelines to avoid abatement traps.