(1) The Limitation Act of 1963 contains 32 Sections and 137 Articles. Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is divided into three divisions. First division deals with Suits (Articles 1 to 113), Second division deals with Appeals (Art. 114-117) and the Third division deals with Applications (Art. 118-137). Again the First division is divided into ten parts: (1) (i) Part I relating to accounts (Arts. 1-5); (ii) Part II relating to contracts (Arts.
6- 55); (iii) Part III relating to declarations (Arts. 56- 58); (iv) Part IV relating to decrees and instruments (Arts. 59-60); (v) Part V relating to immovable property (Arts. 61-67); (vi) Part VI relating to movable property (Arts. 68-71); (vii) Part VII relating to tort (Arts.
72- 91); (vii) Part VIII relating to trusts and trust property (Arts. 92-96); (ix) Part IX relating to miscellaneous matters (Arts. 97-112); and (x) Part X suits for which there is no prescribed period (Art.
113). In third division there are two parts: Part I deals with Applications in specified cases and Part II deals with other cases. (2) No uniform of limitation for suits under the classifications has been attempted. (a) The limitation period is reduced to 30 years from 60 of the Act IX of 1908 in the suits of: (i) Suit by the mortgagor for the redemption or recovery of possession of the immovable property mortgaged; (ii) Suits by mortgagees for foreclosure; and (iii) Suits by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government including the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (b) A longer period of 12 years has been prescribed for various kinds of suits relating to immovable property, trusts and endowments. (c) A period of 3 years has been prescribed for suits relating to accounts, contracts, and declarations, suits relating to decrees and instruments and suits relating to movable property.
(d) A period varying from 1 to 3 years has been prescribed for suits relating to torts and miscellaneous matters and for suits for which no period of limitation has been provided elsewhere in the Schedule to the Act. (e) The minimum period of seven days of the Act IX of 1908 for an appeal against the sentence of death passed by Court of Session or a High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction has been raised to 30 days from the date of sentence. (3) The Limitation Act, 1963 has avoided illustrations on the suggestion of the Third Report of the Law Commission on the Limitation Act of 1908 as the illustrations are unnecessary and often are misleading. (4) The range of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been considerably widened to include almost all Court proceedings. The extended definition of ‘application’ has been given so as to include any petition, original or otherwise.
The change in the language of Sections 2 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 includes all petitions and also applications under special laws. (5) The definitions of ‘application’, ‘plaintiff and ‘defendant’ have been enlarged in the new Act so as to include not only a person from whom the ‘applicant’, ‘plaintiff, or ‘defendant’ as the case may be, derives his title but also a person whose estate is represented by an executor, administrator or other representative. (6) Sections 86 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Code require the consent of the Central Government before suing foreign rulers, ambassadors and envoys. The Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the time obtained for obtaining such consent shall be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing such suits.
(7) The new law of limitation in terms of Limitation Act, 1963 does not make any racial or class distinction since both Hindu and Muslim law are available to the law of limitation as is presently existing in the statute book. In Syndicate Bank v. Prabha D. Naik, (AIR 2001 SC 1968) the Supreme Court has observed that the law of limitation in terms of Limitation Act, 1963 does not make any racial or class distinction.