The Limitation Act, 1963
PART III: COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION
Section 13: Exclusion Of Time In Cases Where Leave To Sue Or Appeal As A Pauper Is Applied For
Bare Act
In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or appeal in any case where an application for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper has been made and rejected, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting in good faith his application for such leave shall be excluded, and the court may, on payment of the court fees prescribed for such suit or appeal, treat the suit or appeal as having the same force and effect as if the court fees had been paid in the first instance.
Simplified Act
When figuring out the deadline to start a lawsuit or file an appeal, if someone asked for permission to do so without paying because they couldn't afford it (known as a 'pauper application') but got turned down, the time they spent honestly trying to get that permission won't count against them. If they then pay the normal court fees, the court can decide to treat their case as if they had paid these fees right from the start.
Explanation using examples
Imagine a scenario where an individual, Mr. Sharma, wishes to file a lawsuit against a company for breach of contract. Mr. Sharma, due to financial difficulties, applies to the court to be allowed to sue as a pauper without paying the court fees. However, his application is rejected after two months of deliberation. According to Section 13 of The Limitation Act, 1963, the two months during which Mr. Sharma was pursuing his application to sue as a pauper in good faith are excluded from the calculation of the limitation period for filing the lawsuit. Once Mr. Sharma pays the court fees, his lawsuit can proceed as if he had paid the fees at the outset, without being barred by limitation.
