New Delhi:
Observing that country is ”returning to normalcy”, the Supreme Court Monday decided to end the extension of the limitation period which was granted for filing appeals in March 2020 to litigants due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation.
The apex court had on March 23 last year invoked its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the limitation period of appeals from courts or tribunals on account of the pandemic with effect from March 15, 2020. A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat had been extending the limitation period by interim orders and finally decided to put an end to this keeping in mind the improved situation in the country and the fact that courts have started functioning.
”Though we have not seen the end of the pandemic, there is a considerable improvement. The lockdown has been lifted and the country is returning to normalcy. Almost all the Courts and Tribunals are functioning either physically or in virtual mode. ”We think that the order has served its purpose and given the changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the extension of limitation should come to an end,” the apex court said in its order. It considered the suggestions of Attorney General K K Venugopal and issued a slew of directions regarding the future course of action on the filing of appeals. ”In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from March 15, 2020, till March 14, 2021, shall stand excluded,” it said. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as of March 15, 2020, if any, shall become available with effect from March 15, this year, it said. ”In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between March 15, 2020, till March 14, 2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from March 15, 2021. ”In the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from March 15, 2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply,” it said. The apex court said its order would apply in cases including those under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Commercial Courts Act, and the cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bench asked the Centre to amend the guidelines for containment zones and to say: “Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as time-bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.” Due to the onset of the pandemic, the top court had taken a suo moto cognizance of the situation arising from difficulties that might be faced by the litigants across the country in filing cases within the limitation period and had passed the order. Now, the court decided to dispose of the plea. Earlier, Venugopal urged the Supreme Court that litigants be given 90 more days as the limitation period for filing appeals as the earlier order on the issue which was passed due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation has been lifted. In its March 23 last year order, the apex court had said, “This court has taken suo moto cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or Special Laws (both Central and/or State).” “To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that 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 the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. March 15, 2020, till further order/s to be passed by this court in present proceedings,” it had said.
