Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court

13 September 2026 1:35 PM

By: sayum


"As per Article 72 of Limitation Act, the suit for damages is to be filed within one year from the date, when the act or omission takes place." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent ruling, affirmed that a civil suit seeking compensation or damages for physical injuries sustained in a criminal assault is governed strictly by Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a one-year limitation period from the date of the occurrence.

A single bench of Justice Harsh Bunger held that any delay in instituting a civil suit cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thereby dismissing a regular second appeal filed by an assault victim who approached the civil court nearly six years after the incident.

The appellant had instituted a civil suit for compensation and damages on account of physical injuries, economic loss, and mental torture arising out of an assault on November 12, 2009, over a boundary dispute, for which the respondents were previously convicted under Sections 323, 325, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently dismissed the suit as hopelessly barred by limitation, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court in a regular second appeal.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether a civil suit for compensation and damages arising from criminal injuries is governed by the one-year limitation period under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether such delay in filing a suit could be condoned.

Article 72 Governs Suits For Tortious Acts And Criminal Trespass

The High Court observed that when a claimant seeks compensation on account of bodily harm or damages arising out of criminal acts, the cause of action accrues on the exact date of the assault. The bench noted that suits of this nature clearly fall within Part VII of the Limitation Act, which specifically governs actions founded on torts.

"Indeed, the suit for recovery of compensation in respect of injuries suffered by the plaintiff on account of criminal trespass would be governed by Article 72 of the Limiation Act, which provides that the suit for damages is to be filed within one year from the date when the act or omission takes place."

Delay In Instituting Civil Suits Cannot Be Condoned Under Section 5

Addressing the maintainability of the claim instituted long after the statutory deadline, the court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to appeals and applications, and has no application to original suits. The bench placed reliance on the precedent in Mohinder Singh v. Hakim Singh and others (2016), reiterating that there is no statutory leeway to condone delay in filing a primary suit beyond the prescribed one-year window under Article 72.

"It is settled proposition of law that the delay in filing the suit cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act."

Suit Instituted After Five Years Is Hopelessly Time-Barred

Evaluating the facts, the court underscored that the incident took place on November 12, 2009, causing injuries to the plaintiff on that very day, yet the suit for compensation was instituted only on November 1, 2015, after a lapse of nearly six years. The bench noted that the trial court and the first appellate court committed no illegality or perversity in dismissing the suit purely on the threshold bar of limitation without entering into the merits of the compensation claimed.

"Thus, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff after one year from the date of occurrence, is clearly time barred and no fault can be found with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below on that account."

Finding no infirmity or substantial question of law in the concurrent decrees of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the regular second appeal. The ruling reinforces the strict statutory mandate of Article 72, clarifying that victims seeking civil tort damages must initiate litigation within one year of the tortious act regardless of concurrent criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 20 August 2026

Latest Legal News