Limitation Act, 1963 · Chapter III: Computation of Period of Limitation
Section 17: Effect of fraud or mistake
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,—
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him,
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which—
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.
(2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 17
-
Santosh Devi v. Sunder
Whether the High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) affirming the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court which had upheld the decree passed by the trial court…
-
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras
Whether the charge of criminal contempt is proved against the appellants-contemnors beyond all reasonable doubt; whether the conviction of the appellants by the High Court for criminal contempt of Court and the sentence…
-
H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. A. Prabhakar & Ors.
Whether a transferee pendente lite has a right to be impleaded in the suit by seeking leave to appeal and in case he is not impleaded, whether he is bound by the decree passed in the said suit.
-
My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by time; whether the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 apply to…
-
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1 and Indore Development…
-
Union of India v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
It is the case of the respondent company herein that at the time of booking the consignments, from Baad to Hisar via Palwal, the notified chargeable distance for calculating freight as per the Local Distance Table was…
- Super Diamond Tools & Ors. v. K. Mohan Rao
- C.S. Ramaswamy v. V. K. Senthil & Ors
- Saranpal Kaur Anand v. Praduman Singh Chandhok and Others
- Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corporation Ltd. & Anr
- M/S Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
- Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/S Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
- Bhaven Construction Through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.& Anr.
- Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors. Etc.
- Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. v. Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla
- P. Radha Bai and Ors. v. P. Ashok Kumar and Anr.
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli v. M/S. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Ltd.
- M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise