Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that:
According to Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 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.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The expression ‘Continuing breach of contract or continuing tort’ means that, if an act or omission on the part of an accused continued the breach of contract or wrongs, and if that act or omission continues from day to day, then a fresh cause of action de die in diem causes for a fresh offence every day on which the act or omission continues.
Section 22 of the Limitation Act relates to continuing breach of contract and also to continuing tort which this section provides for a suit for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage. The law of Limitation recognized that liabilities for payments of damages and/or compensation may continue to accrue day to day newly in respect of continuing breach of contracts and torts.
In Raja Bala v. Krishnarav Ramachandra [2 Bom. 273] it has been held that a breach of a covenant for quiet possession is a continuing breach, and a suit on such breach would not be barred so long as the breach continues. A breach of a covenant to repair is a continuing breach. The building of a house on his holding by a tenant contrary to the terms of his tenancy is a continuing breach. So also erection and maintenance of huts on an occupancy holding, which is not authorised, is in the nature of a continuing wrong.
The continuing tort means continuing ‘wrong’. Section 22 refers to a continuing wrong or tort. A continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury causes by it itself continues then the act constitutes a continuous wrong. If the act is such that the injury itself is continuous, then there is a ‘continuing wrong’. Where the injury complained of is complete on a certain date there is no continuing wrong.
The test in applying Section 22 of the Limitation is not whether the right is a continuing right but whether the wrong is a continuing wrong.
Breach of obligation is a breach of contract. Trespass, reduction, omission, obstruction to water way, obstruction to enjoyment of an easement, closing of tank, closing of drains etc. are continuing wrongs.
In Narayan v. Ambica [AIR 1970 Pat. 246] it has been held that since every citizen in India has a right to stay in India, a quit India notice upon a person constitutes a threat of deportation which is a continuing civil wrong.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The destruction of a right of way is a continuous wrong similarly; disturbance of the right of worship is a continuous wrong. In R.T. Thathachariar v. A.M. Jeerswamy [AIR 1978 Mad. 210] it has been held that a suit for permanent injunction restraining the trustees of a public temple from violating an established usage of the temple is never barred by limitation as each violence gives rise to a fresh cause of action.
An infringement of a trade mark is a continuing wrong. In Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof Mfg. Co. [AIR 1997 SC 1398] it has been held that after filing the first suit based on the infringement of trade mark and passing off action till the date of suit, a second suit is filed for continuous acts of infringement of trade mark subsequent to the filing of the earlier suit is not barred.
It was held in Moti Ram v. Hansraj [AIR 1936 Lah, 344] that an obstruction of light and air is analogous to the obstructing of a right of way or flow of water. An obstruction of light and air is a continuous wrong.
In Basawanewa v. Shivappa [AIR 1936 Born. 289] it has been held that the refusal of a wife to return to her husband and allow him the exercise of conjugal rights constitutes a continuing wrong.
Section 22 has no application to suits for dissolution of marriage. Section 22 does not apply for action of the employer dismissing the employer. An illegal distress or attachment of the tenant’s crops by the landlords is not a continuous wrong.