Limitation Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide
Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1963
Section 22 of Limitation Act: Continuing breaches and torts
Official Bare Act Text
Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary
In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22
Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for continuous and recurring periods of limitation in cases of continuing breaches of contract and continuing torts.
Statutory Period of Limitation: Section 22 establishes that in the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort (wrong independent of contract), a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.
Core Legal Standard: The section creates an ongoing, rolling cause of action.
The operational key to Section 22 is the strict jurisprudential distinction between a 'continuing wrong' (which creates a continuing source of injury and fresh cause of action every day, such as ongoing wrongful encroachment or obstruction of a private easement) and a 'completed wrong causing continuing damage' (such as an unlawful single dismissal from service or completed wrongful transfer), which does not attract Section 22.
Key Landmark Precedents:
Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 SC 798: The Supreme Court established the classic test: a continuing wrong requires the continuance of the injurious act itself; if the wrongful act is complete, the mere continuance of its prejudicial effects does not make it a continuing wrong under Section 22.
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648: The Supreme Court held that continuing wrongs (such as recurring wrongful withholding of monthly pension) permit relief without being barred by limitation, though monetary arrears are restricted to three years preceding filing.
Legal Commentary:
In property and environmental disputes, Section 22 is frequently invoked for recurring pollution, unauthorized drainage discharge, or persistent obstruction of rights of way. Litigants must demonstrate that the defendant commits a daily fresh legal infraction, rather than a historical one-time invasion of rights.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22
Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for continuous and recurring periods of limitation in cases of continuing breaches of contract and continuing torts.
The operational key to Section 22 is the strict jurisprudential distinction between a 'continuing wrong' (which creates a continuing source of injury and fresh cause of action every day, such as ongoing wrongful encroachment or obstruction of a private easement) and a 'completed wrong causing continuing damage' (such as an unlawful single dismissal from service or completed wrongful transfer), which does not attract Section 22.
In property and environmental disputes, Section 22 is frequently invoked for recurring pollution, unauthorized drainage discharge, or persistent obstruction of rights of way. Litigants must demonstrate that the defendant commits a daily fresh legal infraction, rather than a historical one-time invasion of rights.