Definitions
Section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) "applicant" includes-- (i) a petitioner; The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "applicant" includes--
(i) a petitioner;
(ii) any person from or through whom an applicant derives his right to apply;
(iii) any person whose estate is represented by the applicant as executor, administrator or other representative;
(b) "application" includes a petition;
(c) "bill of exchange" includes a hundi and a cheque;
(d) "bond" includes any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;
(e) "defendant" includes--
(i) any person from or through whom a defendant derives his liability to be sued;
(ii) any person whose estate is represented by the defendant as executor, administrator or other representative;
(f) "easement" includes a right not arising from contract, by which one person is entitled to remove and appropriate for his own profit any part of the soil belonging to another or anything growing in, or attached to, or subsisting upon, the land of another;
(g) "foreign country" means any country other than India;
(h) "good faith"--nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention;
(i) "plaintiff" includes--
(i) any person from or through whom a plaintiff derives his right to sue;
(ii) any person whose estate is represented by the plaintiff as executor, administrator or other representative;
(j) "period of limitation" means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and "prescribed period" means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act;
(k) "promissory note" means any instrument whereby the maker engages absolutely to pay a specified sum of money to another at a time therein limited, or on demand, or at sight;
(l) "suit" does not include an appeal or an application;
(m) "tort" means a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust;
(n) "trustee" does not include a benamidar, a mortgagee remaining in possession after the mortgage has been satisfied or a person in wrongful possession without title.
Section 2, 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.
Referred to by 2
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.
-
Sagufa Ahmed vs Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for filing an appeal to the NCLAT starts from the date on which a copy of the NCLT order is made available to the person aggrieved. The Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 extending the period of limitation due to COVID-19 applies only to the 'prescribed period' (the period of limitation) and not to the discretionary period for condonation of delay provided in the proviso to Section 421(3). The discretionary period for condonation of delay is limited to 45 days and cannot be extended by the COVID-19 extension order. The law of limitation is based on the principle of vigilance, and litigants who fail to file proceedings within the prescribed period and the discretionary condonation period cannot claim the benefit of the COVID-19 extension order.
On this section: Defines 'period of limitation' and 'prescribed period' as the period of limitation computed in accordance with the Act
-
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (gajra) (d) Thr. Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A registered sale deed which expressly acknowledges receipt of full consideration creates an estoppel against the seller from later claiming non-payment of consideration. Even if non-payment of part of the sale consideration is alleged, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of a completed and registered sale deed. The seller's remedy lies in recovery proceedings, not in cancellation of the deed. A suit for cancellation of a sale deed must be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action first accrues (i.e., when the cheques are delivered or the deed is executed), not from when the seller later discovers the cheques are dishonored. Unexplained delay of over five years in raising grievances, combined with the seller's own acknowledgment in the registered deed of receipt of full payment, renders the suit barred by limitation and devoid of merit. Courts have the power to reject a plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the averments are manifestly vexatious, meritless, and contradictory to the documents relied upon, without proceeding to trial.
On this section: Defines 'period of limitation' as the period prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications; cited to establish the mandatory nature of limitation periods
-
Disha Constructions vs State of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When notice under Section 80 CPC or any other statutory notice is given within the period of limitation, the period of such notice (typically two months) must be mandatorily excluded from the computation of the limitation period, regardless of when the suit is subsequently filed. Therefore, a suit filed after the original limitation period has expired but within the extended period created by the notice exclusion is within limitation. The period of notice cannot be counted concurrently with the limitation period; to do so would negate the exclusion mandated by Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
On this section: Definition of 'period of limitation' and 'prescribed period' - Court held that period of limitation must be computed in accordance with provisions of the Act including mandatory exclusions
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 2
What have the courts held on Section 2 of the Limitation Act?
Sagufa Ahmed vs Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. LTD (18 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Defines 'period of limitation' and 'prescribed period' as the period of limitation computed in accordance with the Act. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 2 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 2, section 2 Limitation Act, section 2 of the Limitation Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sagufa Ahmed vs Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. LTD (18 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 2 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 2 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 2 of the Limitation Act, cited as Limitation Act 2, 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
- 17. Effect of fraud or mistake401 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.