Chapter 3: The Limitation Act, 1963

PART III: COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION

This part details the specific rules for calculating and adjusting the time limits based on events like court closures, delays in obtaining documents, and proceedings in the wrong court.

Section 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.

This section explains which specific days must be excluded (not counted) when calculating a time limit for a suit, appeal, or application.

Sub-section (1)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time limit for any suit, appeal, or application, you must exclude the very first day—the day from which the time limit officially starts running.
• Practical Example: A 3-year limitation period for a debt begins on January 1, 2025. You start counting from January 2, 2025. The last day to file will be January 1, 2028.

Sub-section (2)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time limit for an appeal, an application for permission to appeal, or a request for revision or review of a judgment, you must exclude two things:
  • (i) the day the judgment was announced (the day you are complaining about).
  • (ii) the time necessary (requisite) to get an official copy of the decree, sentence, or order that you are appealing against.
• Practical Example: A court judgment is pronounced on March 1st. The 60-day limit for appeal starts on March 2nd (excluding March 1st per sub-section 1). The appellant applies for a copy of the decree on March 5th and receives it on March 15th. The 10 days between March 5th and March 15th are excluded from the 60-day limit.

Sub-section (3)

• Simple Translation: If you are appealing, seeking revision, or review of a decree or order, the time required to get a copy of the underlying judgment that led to that decree or order must also be excluded.
• Practical Example: An appeal is filed against a decree (the court’s final order). Even though the appeal directly challenges the decree, the time taken to get the copy of the detailed judgment (the document explaining why the court ruled that way) is also added to your permitted appeal time.

Sub-section (4)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time limit for an application to cancel a financial award made by an arbitrator, the time needed to get an official copy of that award must be excluded.
• Practical Example: The time limit to challenge an arbitration award is 30 days. It takes 5 days to get the copy of the award from the arbitrator. Those 5 days are not counted toward the 30-day limit, effectively giving the applicant 35 days.

Explanation (for Section 12)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time needed to get a copy of a decree or order, only the time taken after you have formally applied for the copy will be excluded. Any time the court took to prepare the decree before you applied for the copy is not excluded.
• Practical Example: The court pronounces judgment on June 1st but takes until June 10th to officially prepare the decree. The party only applies for a copy on June 15th. The 14 days between June 1st and June 15th are not excluded. Only the time taken after the June 15th application date is excluded.

Section 13. Exclusion of time in cases where leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for.

This section provides relief if a poor litigant is initially denied permission to proceed without paying court fees.

• Simple Translation: If a poor person (a pauper) applies for permission to file a suit or an appeal without paying the required court fees, and that request is later denied, the entire time that the person was honestly (in good faith) pursuing that application for permission must be excluded from the main limitation period. Furthermore, if the person then pays the required court fees, the court must treat the suit or appeal as if the fees had been paid on the very first day the pauper application was filed.
• Practical Example: The 3-year limit for a suit expires on June 30th. A pauper applies for fee waiver permission on June 1st (within time). The court spends 6 months considering and finally rejects the application on December 1st. The person then immediately pays the fee. The 6 months they spent pursuing the pauper application are excluded. Since the original suit would have been filed on June 1st (timely), the final suit is considered timely due to the exclusion of the 6-month period.

Section 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.

This section offers protection to a litigant who files their case in the wrong court due to a mistake.

Sub-section (1) (Applies to Suits)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time limit for a lawsuit, you must exclude the entire time the plaintiff was diligently (with due diligence) pursuing a related civil lawsuit against the same defendant, as long as the proceeding was conducted in good faith in a court that was ultimately unable to hear the case because of a lack of jurisdiction (power) or another similar reason.
• Practical Example: A plaintiff files a commercial suit in Court A, believing it has the financial power to hear the case. After 1 year of legal arguments, Court A determines the claim is too large and rules it lacks financial jurisdiction. The plaintiff immediately refiles the suit in the correct Court B. The 1 year spent in Court A is excluded from the limitation period, provided the plaintiff acted in good faith and with due diligence (i.e., didn’t intentionally pick the wrong court to waste time).

Sub-section (2) (Applies to Applications)

• Simple Translation: This applies the exact same rule as Sub-section (1), but for applications. The time spent diligently and in good faith pursuing an application in a court that lacked jurisdiction or had a similar defect must be excluded from the application’s time limit.
• Practical Example: A person files an application to execute a decree in the wrong district court. After 6 months, the court rejects it due to territorial jurisdiction defect. When the person refiles the application in the correct district court, they can exclude the 6 months spent pursuing the application in the wrong court.

Sub-section (3)

• Simple Translation: If a court gives permission to a plaintiff to file a fresh suit (after withdrawing the first one) specifically because the first suit had a defect related to jurisdiction or a similar defect, the benefit of Sub-section (1) (time exclusion) will still apply to the new, fresh suit.
• Practical Example: A plaintiff realizes their original suit is fatally flawed due to a jurisdiction issue and asks the court for permission to withdraw and file a new one. The court grants the permission specifically on the ground of the jurisdiction defect. When the new suit is filed, the time spent on the first suit can be excluded, ensuring the new suit is not time-barred.

Explanation (for Section 14)

• Simple Translation: This clarifies three points for the purpose of this section:
  • (a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted; (Both the start date and end date of the wrongly filed proceeding are included in the time that is to be excluded).
  • (b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding; (If you successfully defend yourself against an appeal filed by the other side, that defense time counts as “prosecuting a proceeding” and can be excluded if needed).
  • (c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction. (Filing a suit with the wrong combination of defendants, or combining unrelated claims, is treated the same as filing in the wrong court. The time spent on such a defective case can also be excluded).
• Practical Example for (c): A plaintiff improperly combines a land dispute against Mr. X with a breach of contract claim against Mr. Y in a single suit (misjoinder). The court throws out the suit on this technical ground. The time spent pursuing that suit can be excluded under Section 14 because “misjoinder” is treated as a defect similar to lack of jurisdiction.

Section 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases.

This section covers other common scenarios where the time limit is suspended due to external legal obstacles.

Sub-section (1)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time limit for any suit or application to execute a decree, the entire duration during which the court officially stopped (stayed) the suit or execution using an injunction or order must be excluded. This excluded time includes the day the order was issued, the time it was in effect, and the day it was withdrawn.
• Practical Example: A debtor successfully obtains a court injunction stopping a creditor from suing for 6 months. When the injunction is lifted, the creditor has a suit deadline that is 6 months longer than it would have been, as that period of legal restraint is not counted.

Sub-section (2)

• Simple Translation: If a specific law requires a person to give a prior notice (e.g., a 60-day notice to the Government) before filing a suit, or requires the prior consent/sanction of the Government or any other authority, the time taken for that required notice period or the time needed to get that consent must be excluded from the overall limitation period.
• Practical Example: A person must give the Municipal Corporation a 60-day notice before suing them. This 60-day notice period is excluded from the limitation period of the suit, meaning the person gets 60 extra days to file the case.

Explanation (for Sub-section 2)

• Simple Translation: When excluding the time required to get government consent or sanction, you must count both the day you applied for the consent and the day you received the order granting or denying that consent.
• Practical Example: A claimant applies for government sanction on January 1st and receives the order on March 30th. The entire period from January 1st to March 30th (inclusive) is the time required, and it will be excluded from the limitation period.

Sub-section (3)

• Simple Translation: If a suit or execution application is filed by an official receiver (in an insolvency case) or a liquidator (in a company winding-up case), the time period starting from the date the insolvency/winding-up proceedings began, until three months after the receiver or liquidator was officially appointed, must be excluded.
• Practical Example: A company goes into liquidation on January 1st. The liquidator is appointed on May 1st. The period from January 1st until three months after May 1st (i.e., until August 1st) is excluded. This gives the liquidator adequate time to understand the company’s affairs before the limitation clock really starts ticking on their behalf.

Sub-section (4)

• Simple Translation: When calculating the time limit for a suit for possession filed by a buyer of property at an auction (execution sale), the time spent fighting a separate legal proceeding to cancel that sale must be excluded.
• Practical Example: A buyer successfully buys property at a court auction on January 1st, 2025. The original owner immediately files a suit to set aside (cancel) the auction, which takes 2 years to resolve. The buyer’s suit for possession is filed on January 1st, 2028. Since the 2-year period spent trying to set aside the sale is excluded, the buyer’s suit is considered timely.

Sub-section (5)

• Simple Translation: The time during which the defendant was officially absent from India (and from any territory administered by the Central Government outside India) must be excluded from the limitation period for any suit against that defendant.
• Practical Example: A creditor needs to sue a debtor, and the 3-year limit is running. If the debtor leaves India for 18 months, those 18 months are excluded from the 3-year limit. This means the creditor effectively has 3 years plus 18 months to file the suit.

Section 16. Effect of death on or before the accrual of the right to sue.

This section explains how the time limit is calculated when the death of the plaintiff (the one who can sue) or the defendant (the one who can be sued) occurs around the time the legal right to sue arises.

Sub-section (1) (Death of the Potential Plaintiff)

• Simple Translation: If a person who would have had the right to file a suit or application dies before that right officially starts, OR if the right to file the suit/application only officially starts because of that person’s death, the limitation period is calculated from the time when there is a legal representative of the deceased person who is capable of filing the suit or application.
• Practical Example: A man is injured in a factory accident, but dies from the injury before the right to sue the factory owner accrues (the factory owner was given a period to compensate, which passed after the death). The family has a 2-year limit to file a suit for compensation (a Fatal Accidents Act claim). The 2-year clock starts only when the court officially recognizes the widow or next-of-kin as the legal representative capable of filing the claim.

Sub-section (2) (Death of the Potential Defendant)

• Simple Translation: If the person who would have been sued dies before the right to sue against them officially starts, OR if the right to sue only officially starts because of their death, the limitation period is calculated from the time when there is a legal representative of the deceased against whom the lawsuit can be filed.
• Practical Example: A person borrows money, and the debt is due on January 1, 2025. The borrower dies on December 30, 2024. The right to sue only accrues on January 1, 2025 (after their death). The 3-year clock for the debt begins only when an administrator or heir is appointed as the legal representative of the deceased borrower’s estate.

Sub-section (3) (Exceptions)

• Simple Translation: The rules for shifting the start date due to death (Sub-sections 1 and 2) do not apply to two specific types of suits:
  • (i) Suits to enforce rights of pre-emption (the right to buy something before others).
  • (ii) Suits for the possession of immovable property (land or buildings) or of a hereditary office (like a traditional family position).
• Practical Example: The 12-year limit to sue for possession of land starts immediately when the wrongful possession begins, regardless of whether the person who should have sued (or the person who should have been sued) dies before or after that date. The clock for these specific suits is not suspended awaiting a legal representative.

Section 17. Effect of fraud or mistake.

This critical section provides relief when a litigant is prevented from knowing about their right to sue due to someone else’s deception or a genuine error.

Sub-section (1)

• Simple Translation: In a lawsuit or application for which a time limit is set by this Act, the limitation period will not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant discovers the deception or error, or could have discovered it by being reasonably careful (reasonable diligence).

The delay applies if:

• (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
  • Practical Example: A financial advisor (agent) fraudulently diverts a client’s investment funds. The client’s 3-year clock to sue the advisor doesn’t start until the client discovers the fraud, even if the diversion happened 5 years ago.
• (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
  • Practical Example: A property seller fraudulently conceals a defect in the title deed, preventing the buyer from knowing they have the right to sue for compensation. The limitation clock for the buyer only starts ticking when they uncover the concealed defect.
• (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
  • Practical Example: Due to a mutual mistake in a legal document, a buyer accidentally overpays a seller. The clock to file a suit for recovery of the excess money only starts when the buyer discovers the mistake (e.g., during an audit), not when the mistaken payment was made.
• (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him,
  • Practical Example: A builder keeps a receipt proving they received a payment from a client. When the client sues, the builder fraudulently claims non-payment and conceals the receipt. The limitation period for the client’s defense/claim related to the payment remains suspended until the client first gets the means to force the production of the concealed receipt in court.

Proviso (Protection for Innocent Purchasers)

• Simple Translation: This rule for suspending the clock due to fraud, mistake, or concealed documents cannot be used to recover property or set aside a transaction if the property has since been purchased by an innocent third party who paid a fair price.
• (i) in the case of fraud… The purchaser must not have been a part of the fraud and must not have known or had reason to believe that fraud was committed at the time of purchase.
  • Practical Example: A father fraudulently sells trust property to an outsider, Ms. Y. If Ms. Y pays a fair price and has no knowledge of the father’s fraud, a suit filed against Ms. Y (the purchaser) 15 years later (past the normal 12-year limit) will be barred, even if the original fraud was just discovered.
• (ii) in the case of mistake… The purchaser must have paid a fair price and must not have known or had reason to believe the original transaction had a mistake.
  • Practical Example: A property with a mistaken boundary is sold to an innocent third party. The original parties cannot use the mistake provision to challenge the sale to the third party after the normal limitation period has passed.
• (iii) in the case of a concealed document… The purchaser must have paid a fair price and must not have been a part of the concealment or known that the document was concealed.
  • Practical Example: A co-owner hides a deed but then sells the shared property. If the buyer is genuinely unaware of the concealed deed, they are protected after the time limit runs out against the original co-owner.

Sub-section (2) (Execution of Decree Prevented by Fraud)

• Simple Translation: If a judgment-debtor (the loser in a case who owes money) uses fraud or force to stop the execution (enforcement) of a court order (decree) within the original time limit, the court has the power to extend the execution period after the normal time limit expires. However, the winning party (judgment-creditor) must make their application for this extension within one year of discovering the fraud or when the use of force stops.
• Practical Example: A court grants a decree for payment. The debtor intentionally hides all their assets and files multiple fake, delaying lawsuits for 12 years, successfully running out the execution clock. The winning creditor discovers the fraud 6 months later. The creditor has one year from that discovery date to apply to the court for an extension to execute the decree.

Section 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.

This is a major exception. A debtor can effectively restart the limitation clock by formally admitting the debt.

Sub-section (1)

• Simple Translation: If, before the time limit for a suit or application expires, the party against whom the claim is being made (the debtor) or the person they inherited the liability from, signs a written document admitting their responsibility for the property or right, a fresh limitation period will begin. The new clock starts running from the moment the acknowledgment was signed.
• Practical Example: A debt is due on January 1, 2025, with a 3-year limit (expiring Jan 1, 2028). On December 1, 2027 (before the limit expires), the debtor sends a letter signed by them stating, “I still owe you the ₹5 lakh.” This written acknowledgment starts a brand new 3-year limitation period from December 1, 2027, extending the deadline until December 1, 2030.

Sub-section (2)

• Simple Translation: If the written document containing the acknowledgment of liability is undated, you can present verbal evidence (oral evidence) to prove when it was signed. However, you cannot use verbal evidence to explain or prove the actual contents of the document (what was agreed to or admitted), which must speak for itself.
• Practical Example: A signed note says, “I admit my balance is overdue,” but has no date. A witness can testify that the note was signed on June 1, 2026 (to fix the start of the new limitation period). However, the witness cannot testify that the note actually meant the debtor would pay within 6 months, as that would be adding to the document’s contents.

Explanation (for Section 18)

• (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,
  • Simple Translation: The written admission doesn’t have to be perfect. It is still valid even if: the precise debt amount is missing; the debtor says the payment time hasn’t arrived; the debtor refuses to pay now; the debtor claims they are owed money too (set-off); or the admission is addressed to someone other than the actual creditor.
  • Practical Example: A debtor writes to his own lawyer saying, “I acknowledge that I am liable to my creditor, but I won’t pay him yet.” Despite the refusal and being addressed to the lawyer, this is still a valid acknowledgment that restarts the clock.
• (b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and
  • Simple Translation: The acknowledgment can be signed by the debtor themselves or by someone legally authorized to sign on their behalf (agent), such as a Power of Attorney holder.
  • Practical Example: The CEO of a company signs a letter on behalf of the company admitting a debt. This signature by the authorized agent is sufficient to restart the limitation period against the company.
• (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.
  • Simple Translation: The acknowledgment rule applies to suits about property and rights, but not to applications to execute (enforce) a court decree or order.
  • Practical Example: The 12-year limit to execute a court decree cannot be extended if the debtor signs a document admitting they owe the decreed amount. Only a fresh application for execution can keep that clock alive.

Section 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.

Similar to a written acknowledgment, making a partial payment also restarts the limitation clock.

• Simple Translation: If, before the time limit for a suit expires, the person liable for a debt or an interest payment on a legacy (inherited money) makes a partial payment on that account, a fresh limitation period starts from the time the payment was made.
• Proviso: To prove that a payment was made (and thus to restart the clock), there must be a written acknowledgment of that payment, either in the handwriting of the person making the payment or signed by them. (This written proof is not required for interest payments made before Jan 1, 1928, but is mandatory now).
• Practical Example: A debtor owes ₹1 lakh, with a deadline of June 1, 2027. On May 1, 2027, the debtor gives the creditor ₹5,000 and signs the creditor’s ledger next to the entry, “Received ₹5,000 as partial payment of debt.” This signed entry proves the payment, and a new 3-year limitation period begins from May 1, 2027.

Explanation (for Section 19)

• (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;
  • Simple Translation: If the person who loaned money (the mortgagee) is in possession of the borrower’s land and is collecting rent or crops from it, that collection is legally considered a partial payment towards the debt.
  • Practical Example: A bank (mortgagee) takes possession of a property and collects rent from the tenant. Every time the bank collects rent, that collection is treated as a payment, which restarts the limitation period for the borrower to redeem the mortgage.
• (b) “debt” does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court.
  • Simple Translation: Just like with acknowledgment, making a payment on a debt created by a final court order (a decree) does not restart the limitation clock for executing that decree.
  • Practical Example: A debtor pays ₹5,000 towards a court-ordered judgment debt. This payment does not extend the 12-year limit for the execution of the decree.

Section 20. Effect of acknowledgment or payment by another person.

This section clarifies who can make a valid acknowledgment or payment on behalf of the main party.

Sub-section (1) (Person under Disability)

• Simple Translation: The term “agent duly authorised in this behalf” used in the previous two sections (18 and 19) includes the official guardian, committee (court-appointed person), or manager of a person under a legal disability (like a minor or an insane person). This also includes any sub-agent that guardian/manager authorizes to sign or pay.
• Practical Example: A minor inherits a debt. The minor’s court-appointed guardian signs an acknowledgment of the debt on the minor’s behalf. This action is legally valid and restarts the limitation period against the minor’s estate.

Sub-section (2) (Joint Liability)

• Simple Translation: If a written acknowledgment or partial payment is made by only one of several people who are jointly liable (e.g., joint partners, multiple executors, or co-mortgagees), that action only restarts the limitation period against the person who signed/paid (or their agent). It does not automatically restart the clock against the other joint parties.
• Practical Example: Two partners, A and B, owe a joint debt. Partner A signs a written acknowledgment. A new 3-year clock starts against Partner A, but the original clock keeps running for Partner B. If the original clock expires, the creditor can still sue A, but their right to sue B is extinguished.

Sub-section (3) (Hindu Law)

• Simple Translation: This clarifies rules for Hindu law:
  • (a) an acknowledgment signed or a payment made in respect of any liability by, or by the duly authorised agent of, any limited owner of property who is governed by Hindu law, shall be a valid acknowledgment or payment, as the case may be, against a reversioner succeeding to such liability; and
    • Practical Example: A Hindu widow (a limited owner) acknowledges a debt on the estate she manages. When the property eventually passes to the heir (reversioner), the widow’s acknowledgment is binding on the heir and restarts the clock against them.
  • (b) where a liability has been incurred by, or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family as such, an acknowledgment or payment made by, or by the duly authorised agent of, the manager of the family for the time being shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of the whole family.
    • Practical Example: The Karta (Manager) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) makes a partial payment on an HUF business loan. This payment is binding on every member of the HUF, and the limitation clock is restarted for the entire joint family.

Section 21. Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant.

This section determines the limitation consequences when a new person is formally brought into an ongoing lawsuit (substituted or added as a plaintiff or defendant).

Sub-section (1)

• Simple Translation: If a new person is added to an existing lawsuit (as a plaintiff or a defendant) after the suit was originally filed, the lawsuit is legally considered to have been filed against, or by, that new person only on the day they were added to the suit.
• Practical Example: A plaintiff sues Company A on January 1, 2025 (well within the time limit). They realize six months later that they also need to sue Company B. Company B is formally added as a defendant on July 1, 2025. For Company B, the lawsuit is deemed to have started on July 1, 2025. If the limitation period for the claim against Company B had expired on June 30, 2025, the suit against Company B would be dismissed as time-barred.

Proviso

• Simple Translation: The judge has the power to overrule the above rule. If the court is convinced that the failure to include the new plaintiff or defendant earlier was due to a mistake made in good faith, the court can order that the suit is considered to have started against (or by) that new party on an earlier date (e.g., the original filing date).
• Practical Example: A creditor sues a debtor’s estate but mistakenly names only one executor instead of two, genuinely believing that one person was sufficient. When the second executor is added six months later, the court recognizes the honest mistake and directs that the suit against the second executor relate back to the original filing date, thereby saving the suit from being time-barred.

Sub-section (2)

• Simple Translation: The strict rule from Sub-section (1) (that the suit starts on the day the party is added) does not apply in three situations where the addition is purely technical or procedural:
  • (i) where a party is added or substituted owing to assignment or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit (When a legal right changes hands while the case is ongoing, such as through inheritance).
  • (ii) or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant is made a plaintiff (When an existing party simply swaps roles in the same suit).
• Practical Example: During a property dispute, the original defendant sells the property to a third party, Mr. X. Mr. X is then added to the suit. The suit against Mr. X is not treated as starting when he was added, but as starting on the original filing date, because he inherited the property’s interest during the pending litigation.

Section 22. Continuing breaches and torts.

This section deals with wrongs that happen repeatedly or continuously over a period of time.

• Simple Translation: In cases where a contract is broken repeatedly (continuing breach of contract) or a wrong against a person/property is persistent (continuing tort), a fresh limitation period begins to run at every single moment that the breach or wrong continues.
• Practical Example (Continuing Tort): A factory constantly dumps waste onto a neighbor’s land. Every day the dumping occurs is considered a new tort. If the neighbor sues, they can claim damages for all losses that occurred within the limitation period counting back from the day the suit was filed, even if the dumping started decades ago.
• Practical Example (Continuing Breach): A contract requires a building owner to keep a common corridor clear, but they permanently block it. The failure to unblock it constitutes a continuing breach, and the right to sue refreshes daily until the corridor is cleared.

Section 23. Suits for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage.

This section governs specific torts where the act itself is not enough to sue—you must also suffer a measurable loss.

• Simple Translation: For lawsuits seeking compensation for a harmful act that does not create a right to sue until a specific injury or loss actually results from it, the limitation period is calculated from the time when that specific injury or loss occurs.
• Practical Example: A municipality negligently fails to maintain a water pipe, but the pipe does not break until two years after the negligence started. The flooding and property damage that result are the special damage. The limitation period for suing the municipality does not begin when the negligence started; it begins only on the day the pipe burst and the property was damaged.

Section 24. Computation of time mentioned in instruments.

This section is a rule of interpretation for legal documents related to time.

• Simple Translation: For all legal documents and instruments referred to in this Act, any mention of time (dates, periods) must be understood and calculated using the Gregorian calendar (the standard calendar used worldwide today, e.g., January, February, etc.).
• Practical Example: A promissory note states that payment is due on the 10th of Chaitra (a traditional Hindu calendar month). When calculating the limitation period for suing on that note, the court must convert the 10th of Chaitra into the corresponding date in the Gregorian calendar (e.g., March 30th) to determine when the clock starts.