Effect of fraud or mistake
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with effect of fraud or mistake. Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,— (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him,
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which—
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be.
Section 17, The Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded from application to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The express exclusion is inferred from the language of Section 34(3), particularly the phrase 'but not thereafter' which creates an absolute outer boundary of 120 days for challenging arbitral awards. This exclusion is also necessarily implied from the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act, which is to provide speedy dispute resolution with finality and certainty of awards. Once a party receives an arbitral award, the three-month limitation period commences, and subsequent fraud or mistake by the other party cannot defer the commencement of this period or extend the outer 120-day boundary. The principle of 'unbreakability' of the limitation period, enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, precludes any extension beyond the prescribed period.
On this section: Effect of fraud or mistake; held to be expressly excluded from Section 34 of Arbitration Act; does not defer commencement of limitation period once award is received
-
Commissioner of Customs vs Candid Enterprises
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a reasonable basis exists to suspect fraud in the underlying transaction or documents upon which an administrative order was based, a tribunal shall condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the limitation period, as the cardinal principle that fraud nullifies everything under Section 17 of the Limitation Act overrides strict procedural time limits. Such condonation must be granted to allow proper adjudication on merits rather than allowing a fraudulently obtained order to be shielded by limitation.
On this section: Court invoked the cardinal principle that fraud nullifies everything and is not subject to limitation, holding that this principle should have guided the Tribunal to condone delay when fraud was suspected
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 17
What have the courts held on Section 17 of the Limitation Act?
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar (26 Sep 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Effect of fraud or mistake; held to be expressly excluded from Section 34 of Arbitration Act; does not defer commencement of limitation period once award is received. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 17 of the Limitation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Limitation Act 17, section 17 Limitation Act, section 17 of the Limitation Act. People searching for it also type limitation act section 17 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar (26 Sep 2018).
What should I read with Section 17 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 17 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, cited as Limitation Act 17, came into force on 01 Jan 1964, having been enacted on 05 Oct 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 30. Provision for suits, etc., for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908557 words
- 2. Definitions363 words
- 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases347 words
- 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction312 words
- 6. Legal disability283 words
- 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing245 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.