Civil Procedure Code and Limitation Act

UNIT I: Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Introduction

1. Distinction Between Procedural Law and Substantive Law

 Substantive Law: Defines rights, duties, and liabilities of individuals.

Example: Indian Contract Act, IPC.

 Procedural Law: Lays down the process to enforce substantive rights.

Example: Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

2. History, Extent, and Application of CPC

 History:

o Enacted in 1859.

o Repealed and replaced by the present code in 1908.

 Extent: Applies to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir (now
applicable post abrogation of Article 370).

 Application: Applicable to all civil proceedings in civil courts.

3. Definitions (Section 2 of CPC)

 Decree: Formal expression of an adjudication determining the rights of

parties.

 Judgment: Statement by the judge on grounds of decree or order.

 Order: Formal expression of a decision other than a decree.

Suits: Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

1. Kinds of Jurisdiction

 Subject-matter Jurisdiction: Determined by the nature of the

dispute (e.g., property, contract).

 Pecuniary Jurisdiction: Based on the monetary value of the suit.

 Territorial Jurisdiction: Determined by the geographical location

where the cause of action arises.
  Original and Appellate Jurisdiction: Trial courts have original
jurisdiction; higher courts have appellate jurisdiction.

2. Bar on Suits

 Section 9 of CPC: Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil
nature unless expressly barred by law.

3. Suits of Civil Nature (Section 9)

 Disputes involving private rights and obligations.

 Examples: Property disputes, contracts, matrimonial issues.

 Exclusions: Religious rituals, caste disputes (unless civil rights are

involved).

Doctrine of Res Sub Judice and Res Judicata

1. Res Sub Judice (Section 10)

 When two suits are pending between the same parties on the same
cause of action, the subsequent suit shall be stayed.

 Objective: Avoid contradictory judgments and multiplicity of litigation.

2. Res Judicata (Section 11)

 A matter already adjudicated cannot be re-litigated between the same

parties.

 Essentials:

o Same parties.

o Same subject matter.

o Final decision by a competent court.

 Leading Case: Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960) – Supreme

Court held that res judicata applies to both judgments and
interlocutory orders.

3. Constructive Res Judicata (Explanation IV to Section 11)

 A matter that could have been raised but was not raised in the
previous suit is deemed to have been adjudicated.
  Case Law: Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (1986) –
Applied the principle of constructive res judicata.

Foreign Judgments (Sections 13 and 14)

1. Section 13: When Foreign Judgment is Not Conclusive

A foreign judgment is conclusive unless:

1. Given by a court without jurisdiction.

2. Not given on merits.

3. Against principles of natural justice.

4. Obtained by fraud.

5. Based on incorrect view of international law.

6. Sustains a claim contrary to Indian law.

Case Law: R. Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid (1963) – Supreme Court held that
judgments obtained in violation of natural justice are not enforceable.

2. Section 14: Presumption as to Foreign Judgments

 It shall be presumed that a foreign judgment was pronounced by a

court of competent jurisdiction unless proven otherwise.

Place of Suits (Sections 15 to 20 CPC)

1. Section 15: Suits shall be instituted in the court of the lowest

grade competent to try it.

2. Sections 16 to 18: Suits related to immovable property:

 Section 16: Filed where the property is located.

 Section 17: When property is located in multiple jurisdictions, suit can

be filed in any jurisdiction.

 Section 18: When jurisdiction is uncertain, court may decide

appropriate jurisdiction.

3. Section 19: Suits for compensation for wrongs (torts) – Filed

where the wrong was committed or where the defendant resides.
4. Section 20: Other suits – Filed where the defendant resides,
carries on business, or where the cause of action arises.

Case Law: Kartar Singh v. Bhadur Singh (1994) – Emphasized the

importance of territorial jurisdiction in property suits.

Transfer of Cases (Sections 22 to 25 CPC)

1. Section 22: Transfer of Suit on Application

 A suit may be transferred to another court if it promotes justice and

avoids inconvenience.

2. Section 23: Power to Transfer by Subordinate Courts

 When multiple courts have jurisdiction, one court can transfer the case
to another within its jurisdiction.

3. Section 24: General Power of Transfer by High Court and District

Court

 Suo motu or on application, courts can transfer cases for justice and
convenience.

4. Section 25: Power of Supreme Court to Transfer

 Supreme Court can transfer cases from one state to another if justice
demands.

Case Law: Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) – SC held that
transfer should be made if fair trial is threatened.
UNIT II: Institution of Suits and Summons

1. Institution of Suits and Summons

1.1 Institution of Suits (Section 26, Order IV of CPC)

 Section 26: Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a

plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.

 Order IV Rule 1: A suit is instituted when the plaint is presented

before the competent court.

 Essential Elements of a Plaint:

o Name of the court

o Name and description of the plaintiff and defendant

o Cause of action

o Relief sought

o Court fee and verification

Case Law: K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) - Held that a suit must be properly
instituted for the court to have jurisdiction.

1.2 Summons (Section 27, 28, 31, Order V of CPC)

 Section 27: Upon the institution of a suit, the court shall issue
summons to the defendant to appear and answer the claim.

 Section 28: Summons can be served within jurisdiction or outside the

jurisdiction of the court.

 Section 31: Summons to witnesses may also be issued to ensure their

presence.

Order V:

 Rule 1: Summons shall be issued to the defendant to appear and file a

written statement.

 Rule 9: Modes of service – personal service, service by courier, or

publication.

Case Law: V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu (2004) - Highlighted the

importance of proper service of summons.
2. Interest and Costs

2.1 Interest (Section 34 of CPC)

 Section 34: Court may award interest on the principal sum:

o Pre-suit interest: As per agreement or usage.

o Pendente lite interest: From the date of institution till decree.

o Post-decree interest: Up to 6% per annum unless a higher

contractual rate is agreed.

Case Law: Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2001) - Explained the

principles of awarding interest under Section 34.

2.2 Costs (Section 35, 35A, 35B of CPC)

 Section 35: General costs – Court may award costs at its discretion.

 Section 35A: Compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims – Up to

Rs. 3,000.

 Section 35B: Costs for causing delay – Imposed to prevent

unnecessary adjournments.

Case Law: Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India (2005) - Emphasized
that cost should be realistic and not nominal.

3. Pleadings

3.1 Fundamental Rules of Pleadings (Order VI of CPC)

 Pleadings include plaint and written statement.

 Must contain material facts, not evidence.

 Must be concise and precise.

Case Law: Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram (1978) - Highlighted that
pleadings should not be unnecessarily prolix.

3.2 Plaint and Written Statement

 Plaint: Document filed by the plaintiff to initiate the suit.

  Written Statement: Defendant's reply to the plaint; must be filed
within 30 days (extendable to 90 days).

Order VIII Rule 5: Allegations not specifically denied are deemed to be

admitted.

3.3 Return and Rejection of Plaint (Order VII Rule 10, Rule 11 of
CPC)

 Return of Plaint: If the court lacks jurisdiction.

 Rejection of Plaint:

o No cause of action

o Relief claimed is undervalued

o Insufficient court fee

o Plaint barred by law

Case Law: Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986) - Explained grounds for
rejection under Order VII Rule 11.

3.4 Defenses, Set-off, and Counter-Claim

 Defenses:

o Legal Defense: Based on law.

o Factual Defense: Based on facts.

 Set-off (Order VIII Rule 6): When the defendant claims an amount
against the plaintiff.

 Counter-claim (Order VIII Rule 6A): A cross-claim by the defendant.

Case Law: Rajni Rani v. Khairati Lal (2015) - Explained the scope of set-off
and counter-claims.

4. Parties to the Suit (Order I of CPC)

4.1 Joinder, Misjoinder, and Non-Joinder of Parties

 Joinder of Parties: When multiple plaintiffs or defendants are joined

in one suit.

 Misjoinder: When unrelated parties are joined improperly.

  Non-Joinder: When a necessary party is not joined.

Case Law: K.K. Gupta v. K.P. Sharma (1977) - Non-joinder of necessary

parties can lead to dismissal.

4.2 Misjoinder of Causes of Action and Multifariousness

 Misjoinder of Causes of Action: When multiple unrelated claims are

joined.

 Multifariousness: When different causes of action and parties are

mixed improperly.

Case Law: Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) - Clarified
multifariousness as a ground for rejection of the suit.

Conclusion:

Institution of suits and issuance of summons form the foundation of civil

litigation. Proper pleadings, correct parties, and adherence to procedural
norms are crucial for the smooth progress of a suit. The provisions of
interest, costs, and counter-claims ensure fairness and efficiency in civil
trials.
🏛 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) – UNIT III DETAILED NOTES

Key Orders: O.9, O.10, O.11, O.12, O.13, O.14, O.17, O.18, O.19,
O.20, O.21, O.22, O.23
Relevant Sections: 30 to 74 (Execution of Decree)

📝 1. Appearance and Examination of Parties (Order 9 & 18)

Order IX – Appearance of Parties:

1. Non-Appearance of Plaintiff (Rule 3 & 4):

o If plaintiff fails to appear, the suit is dismissed.

o Can be restored under Rule 4 if sufficient cause is shown.

Case Law: G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, AIR 2000 SC 1221 –
Restoration allowed if sufficient cause exists.

2. Non-Appearance of Defendant (Rule 6):

o Ex parte decree can be passed if the defendant does not

appear despite service of summons.

o Can be set aside under Order 9, Rule 13.

Case Law: Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, AIR 2005 SC
626 – Ex parte decree can be set aside for sufficient cause.

Order XVIII – Hearing of Suit and Examination of Witnesses:

1. Plaintiff’s Evidence (Rule 2): Plaintiff presents evidence first.

2. Cross-examination (Rule 4): Oral evidence recorded in presence of

the court.

3. Examination:

o Examination-in-Chief: Plaintiff’s witness presents testimony.

o Cross-Examination: Opponent questions the witness.

 o Re-examination: Clarification on issues raised in cross-
examination.
Case Law: Mangilal v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 1003 –
Examination must follow procedural requirements.

📑 2. Discovery, Inspection, and Production of Documents (Order 11 &

13)

Order XI – Discovery and Inspection:

1. Discovery by Interrogatories (Rules 1–11):

o Either party can serve written questions for clarification of

facts.

o Must be relevant to issues.

Case Law: Lakshmi Narain v. First Additional Judge, AIR 1989 All
84 – Discovery aims to narrow down issues.

2. Inspection of Documents (Rules 12–20):

o Party can seek inspection of adverse documents.

o If denied, the court can order production under Rule 14.

Order XIII – Production, Impounding, and Return of Documents:

1. Production (Rule 1): Parties must produce original documents at

the first hearing.

2. Rejection of Documents (Rule 3): If improperly stamped or

irrelevant, the court may reject them.
Case Law: Ram Rati v. Ganga Singh, AIR 1982 All 390 – Delayed
production can be rejected without valid cause.

⚖️3. First Hearing and Framing of Issues (Order 10 & 14)

Order X – First Hearing of the Suit:

1. Examination of Parties (Rule 1):

o Court examines both parties to ascertain facts and frame

issues.
 o Court can direct ADR (Sec. 89).
Case Law: Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, AIR 2005
SC 3353 – First hearing essential for framing issues.

Order XIV – Framing of Issues:

1. Definition of Issues (Rule 1):

o Material propositions of fact or law in dispute.

o Issues are framed based on pleadings.

Types:

o Issues of Fact: e.g., Whether A borrowed ₹10,000?

o Issues of Law: e.g., Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

2. Court’s Duty (Rule 3):

o Frame relevant issues only.

Case Law: Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, AIR 2001 SC 490 – Improper
issue framing can prejudice trial.

📜 4. Admission and Affidavit (Order 12 & 19)

Order XII – Admission:

1. Admission by Party (Rule 1): Express or implied acceptance of

facts.

2. Notice for Admission (Rule 4): Documents can be called for

admission.

3. Judgment on Admission (Rule 6): Court can pass judgment

without trial if facts are admitted.
Case Law: Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, AIR
2010 SC 2077 – Judgment on admission valid if clear and
unequivocal.

Order XIX – Affidavits:

1. Use of Affidavits (Rule 1): Used for evidence in interlocutory

proceedings.

2. Contents (Rule 3): Must state facts within the deponent’s

knowledge.
 Case Law: Padam Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 218 – False
affidavits punishable under perjury laws.

📅 5. Adjournment (Order 17)

1. Grant of Adjournment (Rule 1):

o Adjournment allowed only for sufficient cause.

o Must record reasons.

o Costs can be imposed for unnecessary delays.

2. Maximum Adjournments: Three adjournments allowed under CPC

(2016 Amendment).
Case Law: Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor, AIR 2020 SC 626 –
Adjournments should not delay justice.

👰 6. Death, Marriage, Insolvency of Parties (Order 22)

1. Death of Party (Rule 1–4):

o Plaintiff dies: Legal representatives can continue.

o Defendant dies: Legal heirs can be substituted.

o No substitution within 90 days: Suit abates.

Case Law: Kailash v. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2441 – Suit abates if
legal heirs not impleaded.

2. Marriage (Rule 7): Does not affect the suit, except in matrimonial
matters.

3. Insolvency (Rule 8): If a party becomes insolvent, the suit may

proceed unless the official assignee intervenes.

🤝 7. Withdrawal and Compromise of Suits (Order 23)

1. Withdrawal (Rule 1):

o Plaintiff can withdraw with or without court’s permission.

o With permission: Fresh suit allowed.

 o Without permission: Fresh suit barred (res judicata).
Case Law: K.S. Bhoopathy v. Kokila, AIR 2000 SC 2132 –
Malafide withdrawal can be refused.

2. Compromise (Rule 3):

o Parties can compromise at any stage.

o Decree passed on agreed terms.

Case Law: Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, AIR 1993 SC 1139 –
Compromise decree is binding.

🏆 8. Judgment and Decree (Order 20)

1. Judgment (Rule 1–5):

o Formal expression of the court’s decision.

o Must be pronounced within 30 days.

Case Law: Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381 –
Judgment must state reasons and conclusions.

2. Decree (Section 2(2)):

o Formal adjudication determining rights of parties.

o Types:

 Preliminary Decree: Rights determined, further

proceedings needed.

 Final Decree: Complete disposal of suit.

 Partly Preliminary and Partly Final: Partially decides

rights.
Case Law: Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470 –
Final decree concludes litigation.

🔨 9. Execution of Decree (Sections 30–74 & Order 21)

Execution: Process of enforcing a judgment or decree.

1. General Principles:

o Section 30: Court can order discovery.

 o Section 36: Execution can be filed where the decree was
passed.

o Section 37: Legal representative can seek execution.

2. Power of Executing Court:

o Court cannot question the validity of the decree.

o Can interpret but not modify the decree.

3. Transfer of Decrees (Section 39):

Transferred if:

o Judgment debtor resides in another jurisdiction.

o Property is outside the original court’s limits.

4. Mode of Execution (Order 21):

o Section 51: Execution by:

a. Arrest and Detention: Up to 3 months (Section 55).
b. Attachment: Movable or immovable property.
c. Sale: Public auction.

5. Key Provisions:

o Section 60: Properties exempt from attachment (e.g., tools

of trade, personal ornaments).

o Section 65: Sale certificate gives absolute ownership.

o Section 74: Protection against illegal detention.

Case Law: Jai Narain v. Kedar Nath, AIR 1956 SC 359 – Execution court
cannot go beyond the decree.

⚖️Conclusion:

This unit outlines pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures under CPC.
Proper understanding ensures fair adjudication and effective
enforcement of rights.
🟢 UNIT – IV: Suits in Particular Cases

📚 1. Suits by or against Government

 Relevant Sections: Sections 79 to 82, Order 27 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Section 79: The Union of India or State shall be named as a party

in a suit involving the government.

o Section 80: Prior notice of 2 months is mandatory before

instituting a suit against the government.

o Section 81-82: Execution of decrees against the government and

their immunity from arrest or property attachment.

 Case Law:

o State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933: The

state can be held liable for the tortious acts of its servants.

🌍 2. Suits by Aliens and against Foreign Rulers, Ambassadors

 Relevant Sections: Sections 85 to 87 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Section 85: Immunity of foreign diplomats from local jurisdiction.

 o Section 86: No suit against a foreign ruler without the consent of
the Central Government.

o Section 87: Protection extends to ambassadors and diplomatic

representatives.

 Case Law:

o Mirza Ali Akbar v. United Arab Republic, AIR 1966 SC 230:

Clarified the requirement of Central Government’s consent.

🏛 3. Suits Relating to Public Matters

 Relevant Sections: Sections 91 to 93 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Section 91: Public nuisance suits, with permission from the

Advocate General.

o Section 92: Suits related to public charitable trusts.

o Section 93: Additional powers for public interest litigation (PIL).

 Case Law:

o Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802:

Expanded the scope of PIL.

👥 4. Suits by or against Firms

 Relevant Order: Order 30 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Firms can sue or be sued in their firm name.

o Service of summons can be made on any partner.

 Case Law:

o Purushottam Umedbhai v. Manilal & Sons, AIR 1961 SC 325:

Established the rights of firms to sue in their name.
👶 5. Suits by or against Minors and Unsound Persons

 Relevant Order: Order 32 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Minor or unsound persons must sue through a “next friend.”

o Guardian ad litem is appointed for defending such persons.

 Case Law:

o Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1978 SC 1351: Emphasized

protection of minors' interests.

🤝 6. Suits by Indigent Persons (Pauper Suits)

 Relevant Order: Order 33 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Individuals unable to pay court fees can sue as indigent persons.

o The court determines eligibility based on assets and income.

 Case Law:

o Union Bank of India v. Khader International, AIR 2001 SC 2277:

Defined conditions for indigent status.

🔄 7. Inter-Pleader Suits

 Relevant Sections & Order: Section 88, Order 35 CPC

 Key Provisions:

o Filed when two or more parties claim the same property, and the
holder seeks court direction.

 Case Law:

o R. Viswanathan v. Abdul Wajid, AIR 1963 SC 1: Clarified the scope

and maintainability.

⚖ 8. Interim Orders
  Key Provisions and Orders:

o Commissions: Section 75, Order 26 – For local inspection,

examination, or investigation.

o Arrest before Judgment: Order 38 – To prevent the defendant

from absconding.

o Attachment before Judgment: Order 38 – To secure the

plaintiff’s claim.

o Temporary Injunctions: Order 39 – To prevent irreparable

injury.

o Appointment of Receivers: Order 40 – To protect the property

during litigation.

 Case Law:

o Morgan Stanley v. Kartick Das, AIR 1994 SC 2022: Conditions for

granting temporary injunctions.

📜 9. Appeals, Reference, Review, and Revision

 Relevant Sections & Orders:

o Appeals: Sections 90 to 109, Orders 41, 42, 43, 45 – Right to

appeal against judgments and orders.

o Reference: Section 113, Order 46 – When a lower court seeks

the High Court’s opinion.

o Review: Section 114, Order 47 – Reconsideration by the same

court.

o Revision: Section 115 – Supervisory jurisdiction of the High

Court.

 Case Law:

o Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing v. Swaraj Developers, AIR 2003 SC

2434: Clarified the scope of revision.

📝 10. Miscellaneous Provisions

  Caveat: Section 144A – A person can file a caveat to prevent an ex-
parte order.

 Inherent Powers: Sections 148, 149, 151 – Courts can pass

necessary orders for justice.

 Case Law:

o Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527: Expanded the

scope of inherent powers.

Unit V: The Limitation Act, 1963

📝 The Limitation Act, 1963

The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes the time limits within which legal actions
can be initiated for various types of claims. It aims to ensure timely justice
and prevent the filing of stale claims.

📚 1. Objective of the Limitation Act

 To prevent the disturbance of rights that have long been enjoyed

without dispute.

 To protect defendants from facing litigation after an unreasonable lapse

of time.

 To promote diligence and responsibility among claimants.

 To ensure evidence remains fresh and reliable.

Case Law:

 Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh (1973 AIR 2537): The Supreme Court
held that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and serves
the general welfare by ensuring that claims are made within a
reasonable time.
📖 2. Important Definitions (Section 2)

 Applicant: A person who applies for any legal remedy.

 Period of Limitation: The time within which a suit, appeal, or

application can be made.

 Prescribed Period: The time frame prescribed by the Schedule of the

Limitation Act.

🕰 3. Computation of Limitation Period

 Section 3: Bars a suit, appeal, or application if filed beyond the

prescribed period.

 Section 4: If the period expires on a holiday, the filing can be done the
next working day.

 Section 5: Allows for condonation of delay if the applicant shows

"sufficient cause" for the delay.

o Case: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353): The

court held that a liberal approach should be taken while
condoning delays.

 Section 12: Time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment
is excluded.

⚖ 4. Period of Limitation for Different Matters (Schedule)

Nature of Period of
Starts From
Suit/Proceeding Limitation

Suit for recovery of land by When possession becomes

12 years
heirs adverse

From the date the debt

Suit for recovery of debt 3 years
becomes due

Appeal from a decree or 90 days (High From the date of the decree or
order Court) order
Nature of Period of
Starts From
Suit/Proceeding Limitation

Application for execution of From the date the decree is

12 years
decree enforceable

🔄 5. Extension, Exclusion, and Suspension of Limitation

 Extension (Section 18): If the debtor acknowledges the liability in

writing, the limitation period starts afresh from the date of
acknowledgment.

o Case: Tilak Ram v. Nathu (1967 AIR 935): Mere oral

acknowledgment does not suffice; it must be written and signed.

 Exclusion (Section 14): Time spent in bona fide litigation in another

court is excluded.

 Suspension (Section 15): When a person is prevented from filing

due to an injunction or order, the period is suspended.

❌ 6. Effect of Expiry of Limitation Period

 Section 3: Once the limitation period expires, the suit or application

becomes time-barred.

 No Automatic Dismissal: The court does not dismiss the case

automatically; the defendant must raise the plea.

 Section 27: In case of adverse possession, the right to property itself

is extinguished after 12 years.

🏛 7. Exceptions to the Limitation Period

1. Legal Disability (Section 6): If the claimant is a minor, insane, or an

idiot, the limitation starts when the disability ends.

2. Fraud or Concealment (Section 17): If the defendant commits

fraud, the period begins from the date the fraud is discovered.

📜 8. Important Case Laws

 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai
Prabhatbhai (1987 AIR 1690): Liberal approach in condoning delay
for claims under social welfare legislation.

2. State of Kerala v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty (1999 AIR 1305): Held that

condonation depends on reasonable and sufficient cause.

3. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997 AIR 236): The

Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to the limitation period
unless sufficient cause is shown.

⚖ 9. Conclusion

The Limitation Act, 1963, ensures that legal rights are exercised within a
reasonable time, protecting defendants from stale claims and preserving the
integrity of evidence. While courts adopt a liberal approach for condonation,
the Act underscores the importance of vigilance and diligence in legal
matters.