petitioner, would not commence fresh period of
limitation which had already commenced.
In view of Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, once time ... institute a suit or make an application stops it. Once time
starts, it does not stop. Limitation is extended only when
there is an acknowledgment
filed within limitation of three years from first accrual of cause
of action. Once the limitation starts, it will not stop.
[12]. Evidently, the agreement ... Limitation Act , the
cause of action was barred by limitation in a declaratory suit as the
time does not stop to run once
Limitation Act , in a declaratory suit,
the cause of action would be barred by limitation as the time
does not stop to run once ... limitation of three years from
the date of knowledge under Article 58 of the Limitation Act and
limitation which once started, would not stop. When
basic law that once the period of
limitation starts running, then generally, it can not be stopped. In
present suit, it is noted ... facts and
circumstances of this case, the period of limitation did not stop
from running and it is a matter of record that present suit
Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation
Act .
22. The mere assertion of title by itself may not be sufficient unless
the plaintiff proves animus ... equally wellsettled
that pendency of a suit does not stop running of 'limitation'. The
very fact that the defendants despite the purported
arisen. It was held that once the limitation period started running, it
did not stop because a separate and independent remedy had been
pursued ... not think it follows
that the provisions of the Limitation Acts that I have
mentioned do not operate to stop the presentation of a
petition
runs in the aforesaid judgments is that „non-
est‟ filing cannot stop limitation and cannot be a ground to condone
delay. Thus, for a petition ... filing and cannot stop limitation as clearly
even the affidavits were not signed and not attested besides a few
other objections.
47. When the petition
originally filed, did not bear the
signatures of the petitioner; it was not accompanied with an affidavit of the
FAO(OS) (COMM) 240/2019 Page ... deliberate attempt to somehow stop the period of limitation from
running and the petitioner did not take any steps to file the vakalatnama and
even
filed with the sole intent
to stop the period of limitation from running. Thus, the first filing does not
qualify to be a petition ... draw is that the first filing was
intended to stop the period of limitation from running. Thereafter, the
petition was repeatedly re-filed, without curing
notice dated 9th December, 1989 does not stop the cause of action
which had accrued and does not give any benefit to the Contractor, which ... not, however, the non-receipt of the letter does not stop the
CS (OS) 549/2009 Page 29 of 32
running of the limitation period
