AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 77

General

Q. 62. Avoidance of technical means as to compliince.-

What changes, if any, would you suggest in the Limitation Act, the Evidence Act and the Procedural Codes in order to avoid the raising of technical arguments relating to non-compliance with their provisions?

[Notes.-Under the Limitation Act, 1963, if a suit is barred by limitation1 then it shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. If technical arguments raising the question of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act are to be discouraged or minimised, one possible device that could be adopted is to preside that an objection as to limitation, if not taken at the earliest opportunity, shall be disallowed. In this connection, reference may be made to an analogous provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as to objections in regard in jursidiction.2].

The question to be considered is whether a similar provision should be inserted in regard to the law of limitation, by amending the relevant portion of section 33, Limitation Act, 1963, and also by inserting a provision barring dismissal of the suit unless the defence of limitation was raised at the earliest possible opportunity.

Section 21 of the amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as follows:-

"21. Objections to jurisdiction-

(1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice;

(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court, unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice;

(3) No objection as to the competence of the Executant Court with reference to the local limits, of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Executive Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."

1. Section 3(1), Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, quoted infra.

3. Section 3, Limitation Act, 1963.



Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys