The Limitation Act, 1963, is a pivotal statute in Indian law that prescribes time limits for instituting various legal proceedings, ensuring timely adjudication and preventing the revival of stale claims. Understanding the key definitions within this Act is essential for law students and legal practitioners, as these terms form the foundation for interpreting and applying the Act’s provisions.

1. APPLICANT

Section 2(a) of the Limitation Act defines “applicant” to include:

• A petitioner.
• Any person from or through whom an applicant derives his right to apply.
• Any person whose estate is represented by the applicant as executor, administrator, or other representative.

This broad definition ensures that all individuals with a legitimate interest in initiating legal proceedings are encompassed. In Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India & Another, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 18 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the significance of acknowledging debts in writing for extending limitation periods.

2. APPLICATION

Under Section 2(b), “application” includes a petition. This inclusive definition ensures that various forms of requests to the court, whether termed applications or petitions, fall within the Act’s ambit. The Supreme Court, in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays, highlighting the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

3. BILL OF EXCHANGE

Section 2(c) defines “bill of exchange” to include a hundi and a cheque. This definition aligns with the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ensuring consistency across statutes concerning negotiable instruments. In Balakrishnan v. M.A. Krishnamurthy, the Court reiterated that the term “sufficient cause” should be interpreted liberally, ensuring that genuine delays do not bar justice.

4. BOND

According to Section 2(d), “bond” includes any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed or is not performed, as the case may be. This encompasses various conditional payment instruments, ensuring they are subject to the Act’s provisions. The case of State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality emphasized that procedural technicalities should not override the fundamental principle of ensuring access to justice, relevant when considering instruments like bonds.

5. DEFENDANT

Section 2(e) defines “defendant” to include:

• Any person from or through whom a defendant derives his liability to be sued.
• Any person whose estate is represented by the defendant as executor, administrator, or other representative.

This broad definition ensures that all parties who can be held liable in a suit are covered. In Siraj-Ul-Haq Khan v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P., the Court highlighted the strict interpretation of limitation laws, underscoring the importance of timely action by defendants.

6. EASEMENT

Section 2(f) states that “easement” includes a right not arising from contract, by which one person is entitled to remove and appropriate for his own profit any part of the soil belonging to another or anything growing in or attached to or subsisting upon the land of another.

This definition covers rights like profit à prendre, ensuring they are considered under the Act. The Limitation Act, 1963, emphasizes equality without racial or class distinctions, encompassing Hindu and Muslim laws, as seen in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik.

7. FOREIGN COUNTRY

As per Section 2(g), “foreign country” means any country other than India. This definition is crucial for determining the applicability of the Act to cases involving foreign elements. In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, the Court dealt with issues of jurisdiction and the applicability of Indian laws to foreign entities.

8. GOOD FAITH

Section 2(h) defines “good faith” as an act done with due care and attention. This objective standard ensures that actions are judged based on the care exercised, not merely the actor’s belief. The Supreme Court, in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., held that lack of diligence could disqualify a litigant from seeking condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of good faith actions.

9. PLAINTIFF

According to Section 2(i), “plaintiff” includes:

• Any person from or through whom a plaintiff derives his right to sue.
• Any person whose estate is represented by the plaintiff as executor, administrator, or other representative.

This ensures that all parties with a legitimate claim are recognized under the Act. In Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., the Court emphasized the need for plaintiffs to act diligently within prescribed limitation periods.

10. PERIOD OF LIMITATION

Section 2(j) defines “period of limitation” as the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application by the Schedule, and “prescribed period” means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This definition is fundamental, as it determines the time frames within which legal actions can be initiated under the Act.