Question

Sections 12-15 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provide for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation prescribed by law. Which of the following falls inside the ambit of exclusion?

• A. Day on which judgment/order/award is pronounced
• B. Time during which stay/injunction operated
• C. Time during which the defendant had been out of India.
• D. All the above

Hint:

The Limitation Act is not just about the prescribed periods. Sections 3 to 24, which deal with condonation of delay, legal disability, acknowledgement, and exclusion of time, are equally important. Understand the difference between 'computation', 'exclusion', and 'condonation'.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Sections 12 to 15 of the Limitation Act carve out several specific periods that get excluded while counting whether a suit or appeal is filed on time, and all three scenarios listed here happen to be among them.

1. Day on which judgment/order/award is pronounced: Section 12 excludes this day, along with time needed for obtaining a copy, when computing limitation for appeals or revisions.
2. Time during which stay/injunction operated: Section 15 excludes this period, since the party was legally prevented from proceeding while the stay was in force.
3. Time during which the defendant had been out of India: Section 15 excludes this period as well, recognising that the plaintiff could not practically pursue the defendant during that absence.
4. All the above: since each scenario is separately and explicitly covered, all three qualify together.

The correct answer is All the above.

Answer 2

Instead of checking whether any one option is right or wrong, it helps here to look at what unites all three scenarios, each describes a period during which the party seeking relief was genuinely unable to act, either because of procedural steps, a court order, or the other party's absence.

1. Day on which judgment/order/award is pronounced: excluding this day, and the time taken to get a certified copy, recognises that a party cannot file an appeal before they even have the order in hand.
2. Time during which stay/injunction operated: while a court has itself stayed proceedings, it would be unfair to count that period against the party seeking to act.
3. Time during which the defendant had been out of India: if the defendant cannot be reached or served because they are abroad, the plaintiff should not be penalised for that delay either.
4. All the above: since the underlying logic, that time genuinely beyond a party's control should not count against them, applies equally to all three situations, and each is backed by its own clause in the Act.

All three circumstances are recognised grounds for exclusion, so the correct answer is All the above.