Section 22 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Continuing Breaches and Torts

Section 22 OF limitation ACT, 1963

Section 22 of Limitation Act, 1963

Continuing breaches and torts

In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation beings to run at every moment of the time during the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.

Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the “Continuing breaches and torts.” The section provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract or other wrongful act, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the wrongful act continues.

In simpler terms, if a person commits a wrongful act that results in a continuing injury or damage, the limitation period for filing a suit for compensation will start from the date of each such continuing act. For example, if a landlord wrongfully evicts a tenant, and the tenant continues to be deprived of his right to occupy the property, then the tenant can file a suit for damages within the limitation period that starts from the date of each such wrongful act.

The section also provides that if a person is entitled to a recurring right, such as rent, or interest on money, and the right is denied, the limitation period for filing a suit for recovery of the right begins to run from the date when the denial of the right takes place.

It is important to note that the period of limitation for filing a suit for a continuing breach or tort does not start from the date when the breach or tort first occurred, but from the date of each continuing act. This means that the plaintiff can file a suit for each act of breach or tort, even if the earlier acts are time-barred.

Decoding Section 22: Continual Breaches and the Law


Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, addresses the complexity of ongoing wrongful acts, stating that for each day the act continues, a new limitation period starts. This provision is crucial in cases where the wrongful act, such as noise pollution or unauthorized use of property, is repetitive or continuous. It means that the limitation clock resets daily, offering legal recourse even if the initial start of the breach was long ago. Real-life examples, such as a neighbor’s ongoing noise disturbance, clearly demonstrate the applicability of this section. These examples help in understanding how this legal provision plays out in everyday scenarios.

Case Study Analysis


For instance, in a case of ‘ABC vs XYZ’, for an ongoing encroachment on property, each day of continuation constituted a fresh start to the limitation period, allowing the property owner to seek legal remedy years after the initial encroachment.

In conclusion, Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, recognizes the concept of continuing breaches and torts and provides that a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the wrongful act continues. This section ensures that the right to seek relief for continuing breaches and torts is not extinguished by the expiry of the limitation period for the earlier acts.

FAQs on Section 22 of limitation Act, 1963:

  1. What exactly does Section 22 of the Limitation Act cover?
    • Section 22 covers cases of continuing breaches or torts, where a new limitation period starts with each day the wrongful act continues.
  2. How does Section 22 affect legal proceedings in continuous wrong cases?
    • It allows the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings within the stipulated time from the last occurrence of the wrongful act, rather than from the first occurrence.
  3. Can Section 22 be applied to any kind of continuous wrong?
    • It primarily applies to cases like continuous nuisance, trespass, or any ongoing act that constitutes a legal wrong.
  4. Is there a limit to how long one can wait to take legal action under Section 22?
    • While Section 22 allows for fresh limitation periods, it’s advisable to take legal action as soon as possible to avoid complications in proving the continuous nature of the wrong.