Question

Principle: Limitation Act, 1963 bars the remedy, not the tight
Facts : After the expiry of the period of limitation of three years, debtor Rohan makes a part payment of debt to creditor Sohan. Sohan then files a suit against Rohan for recovery of the debt after two years from the date of part payment. Decide.

• A. The part payment extends the period of limitation
• B. The suit is time barred as part payment is made after the expiry of period of limitation
• C. Fresh period of limitation begins from the date of part payment
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

The correct option is C Fresh period of limitation begins from the date of part payment

• Limitation Act, 1963 bars the remedy of plaintiff but does not extinguish his right. It is meant to see that the plaintiff does not resort to dilatory tactics, but seeks his remedy within a time fixed by the Legislature. The right continues to exist notwithstanding that the remedy is barred by limitation. A debtor may pay the time barred debt to the creditor. He cannot claim it back on the plea that it was time barred.
  
• In the present case, Rohan has made part payment to Sohan after the expiry of three years from the original agreement but that does not extinguish right of the old contract but it will continue and fresh period of limitation begins from the date of part payment.