Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Remedy for Delay Condonation in Money Suit - The courts generally do not have the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed limitation period. The limitation period for suits for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff is typically three years, and any delay beyond this period is barred unless explicitly extended by a statutory order. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, but such discretion cannot override the limitation period itself. The courts have clarified that orders extending limitation do not automatically permit condonation of delay beyond the statutory period. Sources: Nitin Kumar VS Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Del) 414 - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 414, N. Halkara H. U. F. VS Pradip Bastimal Chopra - Bombay, State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Chennai VS Tvl. Speed Exports, Rep. by its Proprietor, Chennai - Madras, T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Madras, T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases
Main Points:
The law emphasizes finality and certainty, establishing a life span for legal remedies to prevent indefinite claims and legal uncertainty Sources: Nitin Kumar VS Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Del) 414 - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 414, N. Halkara H. U. F. VS Pradip Bastimal Chopra - Bombay, State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Chennai VS Tvl. Speed Exports, Rep. by its Proprietor, Chennai - Madras, T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Madras, T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Summary: The remedy for delay in suits for money payable by the defendant is limited by the three-year statutory limitation period. While courts can extend the limitation period, they generally do not condone delays beyond the original period, and delay condonation is at their discretion, based on acceptable reasons. Once the limitation period expires, the suit is typically barred, unless exceptional condonation is granted within the statutory and judicial limits.
Filing a lawsuit for money recovery can be time-sensitive, especially when the defendant holds funds received for the plaintiff's use. Imagine discovering that the three-year limitation period has lapsed—does a remedy exist? This post explores the key legal principles governing delay condonation in suits for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use, where the limitation period of three years has passed.
We'll break down the applicable laws, court interpretations, and practical steps, drawing from established precedents. Note: This is general information based on legal principles and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for filing a suit to recover money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff—for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use—is three years from the date the money is received or the cause of action accrues. Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630Mamraj Singh VS General Manager, (Panda), B. H. E. L. - Uttarakhand
As one source clarifies: For money payable by defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use, three years when the money is received.Mamraj Singh VS General Manager, (Panda), B. H. E. L. - Uttarakhand This aligns with older provisions like Article 24, emphasizing the same timeline. Vizianagaram Central Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd VS Government Of A. P. , rep. by the Collector - 1995 Supreme(AP) 772 - 1995 0 Supreme(AP) 772Swedfund International VS Aditya Gustavsberg Ltd. - 1995 Supreme(Raj) 1040 - 1995 0 Supreme(Raj) 1040
The cause of action typically starts when the defendant receives the money, creating a legal obligation to refund it. Delays beyond this period render the suit time-barred unless exceptional remedies apply. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(C vs XOMOX SANMAR LIMITED - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 51188 - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 51188
If the suit is filed after the three-year limit, the plaintiff may seek condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This section allows admission of an application or appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630
However, application to suits is nuanced. While Section 5 primarily covers appeals and applications, courts exercise discretion in money suits, evaluating whether the delay warrants condonation to advance substantial justice. Condonation is a matter of judicial discretion, which requires the applicant to establish sufficient cause for the delay, and such discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily or on untenable grounds.Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630Maniben Devraj Shah VS Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai - 2012 2 Supreme 674
Courts focus on the acceptability of the explanation, not just the length of delay:- Valid Grounds: Mistaken belief, coercion, procedural delays, or circumstances beyond control (e.g., counsel's error or external events). Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630- Judicial Tests: The courts have emphasized that once the court accepts the explanation for delay as sufficient, it should not disturb that finding unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable or arbitrary grounds.Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630Maniben Devraj Shah VS Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai - 2012 2 Supreme 674- Purpose: To prevent genuine claims from failing due to technicalities. Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630
In money suits, plaintiffs must demonstrate bona fide reasons. Long delays (e.g., 7-8 years) are scrutinized heavily, especially if they prejudice the defendant. K. Prabhakaran VS Mr. K. Govindaraj - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 244 - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 244T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar VS K. Ayyadurai - Current Civil Cases
Not all delays qualify. Courts reject condonation for:- Mala Fides or Dilatory Tactics: Lack of vigilance or negligence. Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630- Inexcusable Lapses: Long delays, especially those spanning several years, are typically not condoned, especially when the delay causes prejudice to the opposing party or results from lack of vigilance. (Derived from sources like Nitin Kumar VS Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 414)- No Override of Statutory Bar: Extension orders (e.g., COVID-related) do not automatically condone suit-filing delays beyond the limit. I. N. HALKARA H.U.F. THROUGH ITS KARTA INDARMAL N. HALKARA vs PRADIP BASTIMAL CHOPRA - Bombay
One case notes: A suit for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs use under Article 24 of the Limitation Act can only be filed within three years from the date when the money is received.Bank of Baroda, Indore VS Krishna Gopal Kakani - 2001 Supreme(MP) 208 - 2001 0 Supreme(MP) 208
If refused, the suit is dismissed as time-barred, with no revival. Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630N. Balakrishnan VS M. Krishnamurthy - 1998 7 Supreme 209
In order to attract Article 62, it is not necessary that the defendant should have actually intended to receive it for the use of the plaintiff at the moment of receipt, of the money.Mamraj Singh VS General Manager, (Panda), B. H. E. L. - Uttarakhand
To maximize chances of condonation:1. File Promptly with Explanation: Attach affidavits detailing sufficient cause.2. Gather Evidence: Prove circumstances like procedural delays or unavoidable events.3. Anticipate Defenses: Defendants often raise limitation; prepare counterarguments.4. Consider Alternatives: If barred, explore acknowledgments resetting the period or fresh causes.5. Seek Extensions Judiciously: Rely on statutory provisions only.
The plaintiff should carefully establish and substantiate the sufficient cause for delay when seeking condonation under Section 5.Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630
The remedy for delay in a money suit after the 3-year limitation hinges on Section 5 condonation, but success demands sufficient cause and judicial favor. While courts aim for justice, strict adherence to timelines upholds public policy. Generally, suits filed beyond three years face dismissal unless convincingly justified.
Key Takeaways:- Adhere to Article 62's 3-year limit to avoid bars. Union of India VS West Coast Paper Mills LTD. - 2004 3 Supreme 630- Condonation is discretionary; focus on bona fide explanations. Maniben Devraj Shah VS Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai - 2012 2 Supreme 674- CPC limits suit condonation—act vigilantly. Nitin Kumar VS Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 414- Long delays rarely excused; prioritize timely action.
For tailored guidance, consult a legal professional. Stay informed to protect your claims!
The suit was admittedly instituted on 20 January 2015 which was beyond three years from the said date. 21.The CPC does not envisage any condonation of delay in filing suits. Three years is the period provided is the maximum period within which a suit can be filed. ... 10.3 On the other hand, as per Plaintiff the #HL....
What was extended by the above order of this Court was only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. ... Repelling the submission of the appellant therein that even in the matter of the condonation of delay in exercise of the aforesaid discretion conferred by the statute a party can avail benefit of....
3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed on 02.01.2012. ... So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. ... So a lifespan m....
use of the plaintiff, & co" The most comprehensive of the old common law counts was that for money received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. ... The contention urged on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeals 306 and 644 of 1962 was that the Article refers to "money payable by the defendant to the #HL....
use of the plaintiff, & co" The most comprehensive of the old common law counts was that for money received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. ... The contention urged on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeals 306 and 644 of 1962 was that the Article refers to "money payable by the defendant to the #HL_....
(3) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in granting decree for recovery of money especially when the suit was filed by praying nominal Court fee and the correct Court fee was paid after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the suit for recovery of money? ... (4) Whether the respondents can sustain the suit for recovery of #HL_STA....
Money suit was filed way back in 1998 and Revision petitioner/plaintiff has been pursuing the matter for nearly 7 to 8 years. The matter could not reach finality because of one Application or other filed by the respondent/Defendant. ... The reasons stated for such a long delay is that the learned counsel, who appeared for the revision petitioner before the trial Court, filed another #HL_....
the suit can be said to be well within the period of limitation. ... No.3 of 2020, Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 2. ... Dubhash, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, joined the issue by stoutly submitting that the defence of illegal money lending 5 2012 (3) ALL MR 815 : 2013 (1) BomCR 455 : 2012 (3) MhLj 856. ......
3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was instituted for recovery of money and based on the promissory note. ... Money suit was filed way back in 1998 and Revision petitioner/plaintiff has been pursuing the matter for nearly 7 to 8 years#HL....
3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was instituted for recovery of money and based on the promissory note. ... Money suit was filed way back in 1998 and Revision petitioner/plaintiff has been pursuing the matter for nearly 7 to 8 years#HL....
In order to attract Article 62, it is not necessary that the defendant should have actually intended to receive it for the use of the plaintiff at the moment of receipt, of the money. “For money payable by defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use, three years when the money is received.” It is sufficient if receipt of the money by the defendant creates an obligation in law to retain it for the use of the plaintiff and refund to hi....
“For money payable by defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use, Three years The nature of transactions as it appears from the pleadings and proved by the documents exhibited in the case clearly comes within Article 62 of the old Act which runs as follows:-
A suit for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs use under Article 24 of the Limitation Act can only be filed within three years from the date when the money is received. Because on those dates a writ petition bearing registration number Misc. Apparently on the controversy between the parties in this suit the provisions of Articles 22 and 24 are applicable and the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit within thre....
For money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for three years money received by the defendant, for the plaintiff s use. The repetition is useful as: period of Time from which limitation period begins to run 24.
Reliance has been placed on article 24 of the Limitation Act. Article 24 of the Limitation Act provides limitation of three years for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for the money received, by the defendant, for the plaintiff's use.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
