Bar of limitation
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with bar of limitation. Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
(2) For the purposes of this Act,--
(a) a suit is instituted,--
(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;
(ii) in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and
(iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;
(b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted--
(i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded;
(ii) in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court;
(c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that court.
Section 3, 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.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
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: Makes every proceeding filed after the prescribed period liable to dismissal, subject to provisions in Sections 4 to 24
-
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: Provides that every suit instituted after the prescribed period shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence; cited to establish the mandatory dismissal of time-barred suits
-
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: Establishes the framework for limitation periods and their application to suits, appeals, and applications
-
Arunoday Singh vs Lee Anne Elton
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes the application of the Limitation Act to suits and proceedings under laws relating to marriage and divorce, applies only to original proceedings (suits) and not to appeals from decrees or orders in matrimonial matters. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (condonation of delay) apply to appeals from matrimonial decrees, and such appeals can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The word 'proceeding' in Section 29(3) must be interpreted using the principle of noscitur a sociis to mean original proceedings in the nature of suits, not appellate proceedings.
On this section: Provides that where a special law prescribes a different period of limitation, Section 3 applies as if such period were prescribed by the Schedule
-
Dindupati Guravaiah v. Suragani Bhaskar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2019-08-16 DATE VERIFIED. CRP 2371/2019. Andhra Pradesh HC Amaravati, M. Satyanarayana Murthy J. Isolate: Limitation Act s.3 — the court must consider limitation and dismiss a time-barred suit even if limitation is not pleaded as a defence. Distinct from CPC O14 R5 (no issue without a plea). Do not invent O14 R5. Leading HC.
On this section: Limitation Act s.3: the court must consider limitation and dismiss a time-barred suit even if the defendant never pleaded it; distinct from O14 R5 issue-framing which needs a plea (Dindupati, AP HC). Do not invent O14 R5.
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 3
What have the courts held on Section 3 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: Makes every proceeding filed after the prescribed period liable to dismissal, subject to provisions in Sections 4 to 24. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2018 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 3 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 3, section 3 Limitation Act, section 3 of the Limitation Act. People searching for it also type limitation act 3 years. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 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 3 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 4 (Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed), section 24 (Computation of time mentioned in instruments), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 3 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, commonly called limitation period suit, and cited as Limitation Act 3, 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
- 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
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.