Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with expiry of prescribed period when court is closed. Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens.
Explanation.--A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.
Section 4, 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 60
- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Rules s. 52 Limitation and Court Fees
- Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act s. 32 Appointment of vacation Civil Judge
- Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act 2021 s. 21 Vacation and Holidays
- Arunachal Pradesh Education Act 2010 s. 91 Appeals
- Arunachal Pradesh Goods Tax Act, 2005 (Act No. 3 of 2005) s. 78
- Bangalore City Civil Court Act s. 11 Holidays and vacation
- M.P. Commercial Tax Act s. 65 Application of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Chhattisgarh Value Added Sales Tax Act s. 52
- Daman and Diu Value Added Tax Regulation 2005 s. 77
- Delhi Sales Tax Act s. 62 Extension of period of limitation in certain cases
- Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act s. 40
- Delhi Value Added Tax s. 5
and 48 more
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.
-
Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-6.pdf labelled 2012-01-19 (reportable Lodha J. CA 2014/2006 — body is the named Assam Urban Limitation 4 isolate; no separate embedded decision-date line). Limitation Act s.4 (court closed) applies only to the 'prescribed period' (s.2(j)); Arb Act s.34(3) three months is the prescribed period, but the further 30-day proviso is NOT prescribed period — so s.4 cannot extend filing beyond the 30-day condonable cap. Map Limitation 4.
On this section: Limitation s.4 court-closed extension applies only to prescribed period (s.2(j)); Arb Act s.34(3) further 30 days is not prescribed period.
-
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: Provides that if the prescribed period expires on a day when the court is closed, the proceeding may be instituted on the day the court reopens; establishes that 'prescribed period' means only the period of limitation
-
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: Computation of period of limitation; discussed in context of whether it applies to Arbitration Act
-
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: General provisions of Limitation Act; Court held these apply to matrimonial appeals unless expressly excluded by special law
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… While we have expressed certain concerns regarding the curtailment of a precious remedy to challenge an arbitral award due to a stringent construction of Section 4 of the Limitation Act vis-à-vis Section 34(3), we have held that in light of the current position of law, the Section 34 application preferred by the appellant is barred by limitation based on the following conclusions: - (i) There is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act when …
-
… Himachal Techno Engineers and Another[1]( page-2-0) . 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the High Court. He submitted that in any event, the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act is available only if the proceedings are filed within the prescribed period of limitation, which will be three months in this case in terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The learned counsel relied upon a decision made by this court in the case of Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage …
Questions about Section 4
What have the courts held on Section 4 of the Limitation Act?
Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd. (19 Jan 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Limitation s.4 court-closed extension applies only to prescribed period (s.2(j)); Arb Act s.34(3) further 30 days is not prescribed period. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 4 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 4, section 4 Limitation Act, section 4 of the Limitation Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd. (19 Jan 2012).
What should I read with Section 4 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
60 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 4 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, cited as Limitation Act 4, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.