
Suit Can Be Dismissed as Time-Barred Even Without Framing Limitation Issue
Last Updated on April 14, 2025 by Shianjany Pradhan
The Supreme Court recently clarified that a court could dismiss a suit as time-barred even if a specific issue regarding limitation weren’t formally framed during the trial.
Citing Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the Court emphasized that the court must reject any suit, appeal, or application filed beyond the prescribed time limit, even if the defendant hasn’t raised the issue
The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing a case where the Madras High Court, in a second appeal, had remanded the matter back to the trial court after 25 years of litigation simply because no formal issue on limitation had been framed earlier.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court called its reasoning flawed.
Justice Mahadevan, who authored the judgment, held that the trial and first appellate court had correctly dismissed the suit on limitation grounds, as required by law.
There was no error in not framing a separate issue on limitation, especially since the limitation point was part of broader arguments and evidence considered during the case.
The Court reiterated that while framing issues helps identify the main disputes for adjudication, it is not always necessary to frame a separate issue when parties are not in conflict over a particular point or when the matter has already been argued, and evidence has been led.
Further, the Court stressed that procedural laws like the CPC and Limitation Act are tools for justice—not technical hurdles.
A failure to follow procedure, such as not framing an issue, cannot override the court’s responsibility to ensure substantial justice, mainly where no prejudice is caused to the parties.
The adjudication process is meant to uncover the truth, the Court remarked, asserting that courts can address legal questions like limitation or jurisdiction even if not specifically pleaded, provided no new case is made out without proper pleadings or evidence.
–