Jayadratha, COVID and Limitation

Vriddhakshatra was the King of Sindhu Kingdom.  The name Sindhu Kingdom comes from the area being around the Sindhu River, referred by Alexander as Indus after he won the area in 325 BC. The state is now a province in the present Pakistan and shares a part of the border with Gujarat and Rajasthan. It has a long history and was always a prosperous state due to the fertile soil on the banks of the Sindhu River and its tributaries.

Vriddhakshatra was naturally overjoyed when his son was born and named him Jayadratha, the one who always commands a winning chariot or a winner in all wars. He grew up into a very tall handsome man. Since he was from Sindhu Desha, he was also known as Saindhava and Sindhu Naresh.  Even today, in villages tall persons are referred as Saindhava.  Vriddhakshatra handed over the Kingdom to Jayadratha in due course and left to the forests to lead the life of an ascetic. While doing so, he gave a boon to Jayadratha that any one throwing his head to the ground will be cursed and have his own head shattered into a thousand pieces.

Sindhu Naresh married Dusshala, the only sister of the 100 Kauravas. Duryodhana, the eldest of the 101 siblings, was very fond of Sindhu Naresh. Sindhu Naresh went to Kampilya for the Swayamvar of Draupadi, with the intention of marrying her having heard of her beauty. He failed to break the target set for the Swayamvar, like Duryodhana and many others. Arjuna, one of the Pandava brothers succeeded and later Draupadi became the wife of the five Pandava brothers. Sindhu Naresh naturally developed jealousy towards the Pandavas. This made the bond between Jayadratha and Duryodhana even stronger.

When Pandavas were in the midst of their 12-year Forest life, Jayadratha while passing through the forest found Draupadi alone near her hut. The Pandavas were gone on their errands like getting fruits, firewood etc. Jayadratha was welcome by Draupadi as he was the brother-in-law of her husbands and offered him hospitality he deserved. Jayadratha kidnapped Draupadi much against her wishes. Having come to know of the kidnapping Yudhishtira commanded his brothers Bhīma and Arjuna to follow Jayadratha and rescue Draupadi. Draupadi was rescued and Jayadratha was captured and presented before Yudhishtira. Yudhishtira excused Jayadratha considering his being the husband of Dusshala, but Bhīma tonsured Jayadratha’s head leaving five tufts. Jayadratha had to hide till the hair grew evenly and went to his Kingdom much later.

Unable to reconcile with his insult, Jayadratha handed over reins of administration to his trusted lieutenants and sat on a long penance to please lord Shiva. The goal was to get a boon to defeat Pandavas. He put froth his request to Lord Shiva when he appeared before him. Shiva told Jayadratha that it would not be possible as Arjuna has his Pashupata Astra.  Instead Shiva allowed him the strength to hold back the other four Pandavas on any one day of his choosing. Before Jayadratha could think of something else Shiva vanished. Jayadratha, now armed with the boon, waited for the right day.

Kurukshetra war between Kauravas and Pandavas offered him one such opportunity. Jayadratha naturally allied with the Kauravas. On the 13^th day of the 18 day war, Arjuna was weaned away from the main battlefield by Susharma and his army. Dronacharya arranged for “Chakravyuha”, an army formation in a circle to catch Yudhishtira. Except Arjuna none of the others knew of breaking this formation. Abhimanyu, Arjun’s son knew how to enter but did not know how to come out of the formation. The other Pandavas assured him that they would follow him and manage to break the formation. Jayadratha chose this day to use his boon. He stood at the entrance and blocked the other four Pandava brothers. Caught alone in the circle formation, Abhimanyu fought valiantly but was killed brutally by a combination of six Kauravas warriors.

Arjuna returned at the end of the day to learn about the sad episode of his son’s death. He held Jayadratha primarily responsible for the killing of Abhimanyu. His rage knew no bounds and declared immediately that he would ensure Jayadratha’s death before the sunset on the next day, the 14^th day of the war. He also vowed that in case he fails in his mission, he would burn himself to death by entering a raging pyre. The message spread like wild fire and reached Kauravas and Jayadratha as well.

The “Cause of Action” arose on various days starting from the kidnapping of Draupadi, continued with the blocking of the four Pandava brothers and culminated with the killing of Abhimanyu. The relief for the cause of actions was by repayment by taking away the life of Jayadratha. Arjuna was the executor. Limitation would expire at sunset on the next day. And as a corollary, Arjuna’s life would also end at sunset if he failed to achieve the goal.

Jayadratha was naturally scared. But other Kauravas warriors assured him that they would protect him till sunset on the next day.  A pit was dug in the middle of the army formation to make Jayadratha stand in it so that the tall man could not be spotted from a distance. Despite all his bravery and archery Arjun could not reach Jayadratha as all his efforts were spoiled by Kauravas army. Limitation was expiring. Everyone from both armies were looking at the Sun. As sun set and limitation expired, Jayadratha would be saved, but Arjun will be dead. Limitation became super important at this point in time. Kauravas wanted Limitation to expire, but Pandavas somehow wanted it to extend and not expire at any cost.

Krishna was not the one to allow the limitation to expire. He somehow managed to create an illusion of sunset. Kauravas were elated at the apparent expiry of limitation, but Pandavas were crestfallen. As Arjun lit the pyre for self-immolation, Jayadratha was encouraged to come out of the pit and see the glorious sight in person. Jayadratha came out of the pit. Krishna managed to lift the illusion, limitation had not expired and Arjun succeeded to kill Jayadratha. Krishna advised Arjun to send the head of Jayadratha to the faraway forest and fall in the lap of his father Vriddhakshatra. Startled at something falling in his lap, Vriddhakshatra got up suddenly, thus letting the son’s head fall to the ground. He fell a victim of his own boon and his head was blown into a thousand fragments. Krishna saved the Limitation and saved Arjun’s life twice that day.

The illusion of expiry of Limitation was the cause and actual availability of Limitation was the result of this entire episode. The saga that started many many years ago culminated thus, making it one of the key and dramatic scenes of the epic Mahabharata.

*****

What is Limitation Act?

In our country, Limitation Act, 1963 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith. The Act prescribes the time within which actions are to be initiated for enforcement of rights prescribed under various Acts. An action initiated after this period of limitation is to be rejected as time-barred. The act provides a timeframe beyond which the defendants are protected from actions through courts of law.

Why Limitation Act?

Limitation Acts are enacted with the following basic objectives:

• There should be a definite time before which legal rights are to be enforced as a perpetual threat of legal action is not conducive to life in a civil society. If this is not available, the system may end up in more cruelty than dispensing justice.
• Any action must be initiated and decided before the evidences are lost, witnesses die or situations change so drastically that the balance of justice tilts in favour of any one party for dispute.
• All parties must have a definite idea about the time frame available to them for resolving any disputes that may arise in future, much before they enter into transactions or contractual obligations, creating mutual rights and obligations.

Scheme of Limitation Act

Schedules to the Limitation Act provide a three column chart giving the application of the act containing (a) Description of Cause of Action (b) Period of Limitation and (c) Date from which the period of Limitation starts. Though general perception is that limitation period is three years, it is not so and actually depends on the type of action, contract or applicable provision.

A simple example is one of a loan transaction with a bank. General understanding is that the period of limitation is three years from the lending date. But in case of “Mutual and Open Current Accounts” it is actually three years from the last date of the calendar year (the close of the year, as per the act) in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account; such year to be computed as in the account. Thus, in respect of a Cash Credit or overdraft account with a bank the period of Limitation will be more than three years. If the last admitted transaction is on 14^th July, 2017, the limitation extends up to 31^st December, 2020, since 31^st December, 2017 will be the last calendar date of the admitted transaction entered in the account.

In case of a term loan account with a bank also, the limitation is three years from the date an instillment in the account falls due. In term loans there are multiple limitation dates, unless the account is recalled when all future instillments will also be treated as having fallen due at once.

To enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property, it is twelve years from the time money sued becomes due (and not the date on which it is lent).

However, as a matter of abundant precaution, bankers do not fall back on these provisions and rely on the dates of documents itself, to avoid the challenge of proving an admitted transaction.

The period of Limitation is always to be computed with reference to the cause of action and applicable period as per the schedule to the Limitation Act. A careful scrutiny of the nature of the transaction, cause of action and applicability of the schedule part of the Limitation Act becomes very important while handling such issues in the organisation.

There is no Limitation holiday

Section 9 of the Limitation Act mandates that the period of limitation runs continuously and is not stopped by any event. (One exception is for the duration of the period for which the borrower is out of the country. such period can be excluded while computing limitation). Thus there is no Limitation holiday and it is like a ticking time bomb. It explodes on the date set for it. However, there is a provision to rewind this ticking time bomb by certain actions of the contracting parties, as mentioned in the Act itself. The period of Limitation can be extended by:

• An acknowledgement of debt by the borrower or his authorised agent.
• An acknowledgement with promise to pay extends limitation and creates a fresh cause of action by rewinding the ticking bomb.
• An acknowledgement is a must. An acknowledgement without promise to pay is fine. An acknowledgement with refusal to pay is also fine.
• Part payment of the dues by borrower or his agent also extends limitation. A part payment by an unconnected party (say Branch Manager himself pays some amount to extend Limitation) does not extend Limitation.
• Unless there are firm documents to make this claim, the lender may have to prove his claim to adduce evidence as it becomes a question of fact.

Condoning delay by Courts

Section 5 of the Act gives freedom to the courts to admit and condone delay if the applicant can show sufficient cause for any delays. This is left to the judicial discretion of the courts and not an arbitrary exercise of power.

When courts are closed

Courts are closed on certain days due to holidays or unforeseen circumstances. What should the affected parties do in such cases, if the limitation expires on the day courts are closed? Section 4 of the limitation act provides relief in such cases. It reads as under:

When the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.

Explanation given to the section also states that “A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day”. Thus if the court is not open for the full normal working hours and there is disruption even part of the day, it gives relief to the litigants.

It is to be noted that the above provision does not extend limitation, but only provides for filing of the suit on the day court reopens. There is no extension of Limitation and it is only extension of relief.

Bankers, CORONA and Limitation

There are many interesting discussions going on about application of Limitation period for banking transactions and cases during the lockdown due to Corona Covid-19. Let us take some specific cases and see the applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to them.

For the purpose of this discussion, 17^th March, 2020 (Tuesday) is taken as the date on which courts have closed for Corona issue, though it may slightly vary from court to court. Some courts including Supreme Courts have been accepting urgent matters hearing through Video Conferencing, but this does not make them as working to full capacity. Hence Section 4 of the limitation act is in operation.

Case 1: A loan transaction on which limitation has expired on 14^th March, 2020. Bank should have filed suit on 14^th March, 2020. If not done, limitation is lost.

Case2: A loan transaction on which limitation has expired on 17^th March, 2020. Bank can file suit on the day of reopening day of the court of appropriate jurisdiction. It cannot be beyond that date. (An acknowledgement of debt obtained after 17^th March but before reopening of the court does not extend limitation). If for any reason bank is unable to do so (due to confusion, rush, or any other such eventuality) on the day of reopening of the court, bank may make an application of condoning of delay under Section 5 of the Act, but there is no guarantee that it will succeed. The condoning is left to the judicial discretion of the court.

Case 3: A loan transaction on which limitation has expired on 30^th March, 2020. Bank can file suit on the day of reopening day of the court of appropriate jurisdiction. It cannot be beyond that date. (An acknowledgement of debt obtained after 30^th March but before reopening of the court does not extend limitation). If for any reason bank is unable to do so (due to confusion, rush, or any other such eventuality) on the day of reopening of the court, bank may make an application of condoning of delay under Section 5 of the Act, but there is no guarantee that it will succeed. The condoning is left to the judicial discretion of the court.

Case 4: A loan transaction on which limitation expires on 15^th April, 2020 and court reopens on that day. Suit should be filed on 15^th April, 2020.

Protection to the Defendants under Section 3 (1) of the limitation Act and Order VII Rule XI of CPC

As discussed earlier, one of the objectives of Limitation Act is to protect the rights of the defendants. The right of the Plaintiffs/Applicants is protected by giving reasonable time of Limitation from the date of “Cause of Action”. Similar right is due to be given to the defendants as well. Section 3 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order VII Rule XI of CPC (Civil Procedure Code) make it necessary for the Presiding Officer (Judge) to look into three things before taking the suit into consideration:

• Whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit;
• Whether appropriate Stamp Duty has been paid by the Plaintiff; and
• Whether the suit is prima facie filed within period of Limitation.

Judgments of superior courts have reiterated that the suit may be dismissed any time thereafter also on these grounds. These provisions also stipulate that the plaint may be dismissed even if limitation expiry is not set up as a defense. It is for this reason that as per established practice, Plaints make specific averments on these three issues.

Let us take an example of a plaint with 20 paragraphs. Para 20 deals with the “Prayer” part where the applicant/plaintiff makes specific requests about the relief to be given by the court. In a money suit it may be for passing a decree for recovery of dues and future interest and costs. In a mortgage suit it may be for selling the property and recovery of monies, interest and cost etc. Para 19 deals with the “valuation of suit” for purpose of payment of stamp duty and the fact of having paid the same. Para 18 specifically deals with the various dates on which “Cause of Action” arose, the jurisdiction of the court and availability of Limitation at the time of filing of the suit.

All the above discussions are within the available legal framework before COVID occurrence.

Delhi High Court and Supreme Court observations on COVID Holidays

An excellent article dated 6^th April, 2020, in barandbench.com analyses the effect of COVID holidays on Limitation. It refers to the Delhi High Court order as under:

The issue of limitation was first addressed by the High Court of Delhi in the office order dated March 23, 2020 wherein the following directions were passed:

“Lockdown/Suspension of work of Courts shall be treated as “closure” within the meaning of the Explanation appended to Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other enabling provisions of the Act and other Statutes, as may be applied to court proceedings. Thus, the limitation for any court proceeding shall not run w.e.f. 23.03.2020 to 04.04.2020 subject to further orders.”

It also mentions of the Supreme Court observations in a case before it, as under:

"To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that the lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under general law or Special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in present proceedings."


In view of the above two observations we have to watch out for the following:

• Whether the applicability of COVID holidays/disruptions to the functioning of the courts will be limited to the scope of Section 4 of The Limitation Act, 1963?
• whether Supreme Court would give some relief to litigants due to the likely rush in courts immediately after resumption of work by the Courts, especially in the background of the devastation caused by COVID on social and commercial life?
• Whether the period of closure of Courts right now will be treated as a "Limitation Holiday" for the purpose of computation of Limitation in applicable cases?
• In case the above contingency becomes a reality, what would be the exact nature of the reliefs that would be so granted?

***** 

Whether Sindhu Naresh's death at the hands of Arjun aided by Krishna was in order?

Whether COVID holidays for courts will be a Limitation Holiday?

Opinions are divided. The jury is still out....