Statutes of limitation - Indian Laws - General

Statutes of limitation The laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury s Laws of England,4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows: The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim, (iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as statutes of peace . An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others 1973 (8) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT has observed : the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party s own inaction, negligence or laches . In Motichand vs. Munshi - 1968 (11) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT, this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim interest republicae ut sit finis litum, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. PANDLIK JALAM PATIL (D) BY LRS. VERSUS EXE. ENG. JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT ANR.- 2008 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT