By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 3 November 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
Ask five lawyers how long a client has to file a case and the honest answer is that it depends on what the claim actually is. India does not run on one limitation period for civil disputes. The Limitation Act, 1963 sets out a schedule of well over a hundred entries, each tied to a kind of suit and a date from which the clock starts. As the law stands today, the periods that come up most in an ordinary practice, money recovery, possession, breach of contract, a consumer complaint and a bounced cheque, are fixed and almost never extended once they expire.
The one thing to internalise before the specifics is that limitation does not forgive forgetfulness. A court cannot excuse a suit filed a day late simply because the claim is genuine or the sum large. What follows sets out when the clock starts for claims people actually bring to a law office, how long it runs, and the narrow situations in which it can be paused or made to run afresh.
The basic structure: Section 3 and the Schedule
Section 3 of the Limitation Act is blunt: every suit filed after the prescribed period must be dismissed, whether or not limitation is raised as a defence. The court is expected to check this on its own, even if the opposing side never pleads it. That single line explains why a lawyer's first task on any new matter is not drafting the plaint but working out the date by which it must be filed.
The periods sit in the Schedule to the Act, organised into Articles, each naming a type of suit, the length of the period and the date from which it runs. A claim rarely fails because nobody knew limitation existed. It fails because the wrong Article was assumed to apply, or the triggering date was calculated from the wrong event, such as counting from when a cheque was issued rather than when it was dishonoured.
Two computation rules matter in practice. Section 12 excludes the day the period begins to run. Section 4 lets a filing due on a day the court is closed be made the day it reopens. Neither extends a period; they only adjust how the days within it are counted.
Money recovery and contract claims
Most recovery suits, on a loan, an unpaid invoice, a dishonoured business arrangement, fall under one of three Articles. Article 18 governs a suit for money payable for work done, three years running from when the work is finished where no date for payment was fixed. Article 55 covers compensation for breach of contract, three years from the date the contract is broken, or, for repeated breaches, from the breach actually sued upon. Where neither fits, Article 113, the residuary Article, applies a three-year period running from when the right to sue first accrues.
The distinction between Article 55 and Article 113 gets argued in court more often than people expect, because the two can point to different accrual dates on the same facts. Where a contract fixes a date for payment or performance, limitation generally starts there. Where it does not, the inquiry turns on when the breach actually occurred, or when a demand was made and refused, and that is exactly the kind of factual dispute fought at the limitation stage before the merits are reached.
A separate point for lenders: a written acknowledgment of the debt, signed before the original period expires, restarts the three years from the date of acknowledgment under Section 18. A part-payment recorded before the period runs out does the same under Section 19. Neither works once the period has already lapsed, since by then the right to sue is extinguished and nothing revives it.
Possession of immovable property
Suits for possession of immovable property based on title carry a notably longer period under Article 65: twelve years, running from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff's title, not from the date the plaintiff first acquired title. This is deliberately generous compared to the three-year periods above, because title disputes often surface only when someone tries to sell, mortgage or take physical possession, long after the adverse occupation began.
Courts have repeatedly held that where the substantial relief sought is possession, Article 65 governs even if the plaint also seeks a declaration of title, so a plaintiff cannot shorten their own exposure by labelling the suit declaratory. A September 2025 Supreme Court ruling confirmed that a suit for possession on the footing that the defendant's sale deed is void is also governed by Article 65, not the shorter Article 59 on cancelling an instrument. The burden then falls on the defendant to establish when their possession turned hostile, since that date fixes when the plaintiff's clock started.
A separate and shorter-feeling Article, 64, applies where the plaintiff sues on the strength of prior possession rather than title, for someone dispossessed without legal process. That claim also runs twelve years, but from the date of dispossession, a materially different and usually much earlier trigger than adverse possession maturing under Article 65.
Consumer complaints and cheque bounce cases
A consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 must ordinarily be filed within two years from the cause of action, under Section 69(1). The usual trigger is the deficient service or defective product, not the original purchase date, which matters for goods that develop faults well into their warranty life. Section 69(2) lets a commission admit a late complaint on sufficient cause, recorded in writing, but this is not automatic, and a complaint filed late without a separate application is routinely dismissed at the threshold.
A cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act runs on a tighter, multi-step clock. The statutory notice must go out within thirty days of learning the cheque was dishonoured. The drawer then has fifteen days from receiving it to pay; only if payment is not made within that window does an offence arise. The complaint itself must then be filed within one month, under Section 142(1)(b). Courts can condone delay on sufficient cause, but several High Courts expect a distinct application explaining it, and at least one has quashed a complaint filed on the thirty-fifth day where none was offered.
A separate civil recovery suit on the same cheque is not barred by the criminal complaint and can run alongside it, generally within the three years allowed for a money claim. The two remedies serve different ends, and choosing between them is a strategic question rather than a limitation one.
When the clock can be paused, stopped or restarted
Limitation law carries a handful of tools that work in a claimant's favour, but none of them operate as generously as clients often hope. Section 5 allows a court to condone delay in filing an appeal or an application on sufficient cause, but it has no application to an original suit. Once the period for filing a suit has run out, the right to sue is gone, and there is no provision allowing a court to revive it merely because the delay was explained reasonably.
Section 18 lets a written acknowledgment of liability, signed before the period expires, start a fresh period from that date. Section 19 does the same for a recorded part-payment. Both demand the acknowledgment happen before the original period lapses; a confession made after the suit is already time-barred has no effect on limitation, however persuasive on the merits.
Fraud and legal disability get separate treatment. Where the right to sue is concealed by the defendant's fraud, Section 17 postpones the start of limitation until the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. Sections 6 to 8 extend time for a plaintiff who was a minor or of unsound mind when the right to sue first accrued, though the extension has its own outer limits.
Commercial disputes: a procedural step before the clock even matters
For a large category of business claims, the limitation calculation is not the only clock running. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 makes pre-institution mediation compulsory before a commercial suit can be filed, unless the plaintiff seeks urgent interim relief the mediation process cannot wait for. In Patil Automation Pvt Ltd v Rakheja Engineers Pvt Ltd (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028), the Supreme Court held this requirement mandatory, not merely directory, and that a suit filed without first attempting mediation is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The urgency exception has generated its own litigation. Courts have said it cannot be invoked merely to sidestep Section 12A, and at least one High Court has held that an interim relief prayer tacked on does not automatically exempt a plaintiff if the urgency does not genuinely justify skipping mediation. For a client whose claim is nearing its deadline, the mediation step needs to start well before it, since a skipped attempt can cost the suit on a technical ground even when the claim itself is filed within time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does sending a legal notice extend my limitation period?
Generally no. A notice is often a precondition to suing, as under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but sending one does not by itself add time to a running limitation period. The underlying Article continues to apply from its own trigger date unless a separate provision, such as an acknowledgment under Section 18, independently restarts the clock.
I have a strong case but missed the deadline by a few weeks. Is there any way to still sue?
For an original suit, courts generally have no power to condone delay under Section 5, which applies only to appeals and applications. Narrow exceptions exist, such as fraud under Section 17 or legal disability under Sections 6 to 8, but an ordinary missed deadline usually extinguishes the right to sue, regardless of the merits.
For a property dispute, does limitation run from when I bought the property or from when someone else took possession?
For a title-based possession suit under Article 65, the twelve years run from when the defendant's possession turns adverse to your title, not from your purchase date. This is why establishing exactly when adverse possession began, a fact the defendant usually bears the burden of proving, is often the central fight in a long-running property case.
Can I still file a civil recovery suit after filing a Section 138 cheque bounce complaint?
Yes. The criminal complaint and a civil recovery suit are separate remedies with separate limitation periods, generally three years for the civil claim from the relevant breach or demand. Pursuing one does not bar the other, though the strategic value of running both depends on the facts, the amount involved and how quickly each forum is likely to move.
Is the two-year consumer complaint limit really strict, even for a product that failed years into its use?
The two years under Section 69 run from when the cause of action arose, usually the point of deficiency or refusal to redress, not the purchase date, so a late-developing fault can still be within time if the complaint follows reasonably soon after it appears. Waiting too long after discovering the defect, however, risks a dismissal unless delay is separately condoned under Section 69(2).
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3 (bar of limitation), Section 5 (extension in appeals and applications), Sections 6-8 (legal disability), Section 12 (computation), Section 17 (fraud), Sections 18-19 (acknowledgment and part-payment)
- Limitation Act, 1963, Schedule, Article 18 (money for work done), Article 55 (breach of contract), Article 59 (cancellation of instrument), Article 64 (possession on prior possession), Article 65 (possession based on title), Article 113 (residuary)
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 69 (limitation period and condonation of delay)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) and Section 142 (cognizance of offences, including the proviso on condonation of delay)
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 12A (pre-institution mediation and settlement)
- Patil Automation Pvt Ltd v Rakheja Engineers Pvt Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028 (Section 12A held mandatory)