Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the ‘Omnibus Article for Suits’ of the Limitation Act.
Art. 113 is final and residuary relating to suits, and the Court ought not to regard a suit as coming under this Article unless clearly satisfied that the suit does not come under any of other articles i. e. from 1 to 112. The scope of this omnibus or residuary Article has been widened to some extent by the deletion of several Articles of the Limitation Act of 1908 such of the deleted Articles as have not been amalgamated with others will be covered by Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The statute of limitation is intended to provide a time-limit for all suits conceived. This omnibus Article (Art.
113) is provided for wherever any specific Article does not cover a case. The Articles 15 to 18, 80, 83, 84, 103, 104, 108, 116 of the Limitation Act, 1908 have been omitted. The suits relating those matters will now be governed by this residuary Article (Art. 113). Any suit not governed by the Arts. 1-112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted by the residuary Article i.e.
Art. 113. Main applicability of the Art. 113 is to govern suits for which no period of limitation is prescribed anywhere in the Art. 113.
It is for the Court to decide as to whether the suit would be governed by any specific Article or by this residuary Article (Art. 113). The following suits are governed by the Art. 113: (1) A suit for mandatory injunction [Faquir Chand v. Lilaram, AIR 1994 Del.
161]. (2) A suit for permanent injunction. [Gotham Construction v. Amulya, AIR 1968 Cal.
91]. (3) A suit for an account against the principal by the agent. [LIC v. Gurdial, AIR 1960 Punj. 607]. (4) A suit for partition despite existence of an earlier decree for partition claiming earlier decree as void, sham and fictitious.
[Sanjay Kaushish v. D.C.
Kaushish, AIR 1992 Del. 118]. (5) A suit for dissolution of partnership firm. [Venkatlal v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1963 MP 155].
(6) A suit for accounts filed by one co-owner against another coowner. [Ram Narayan v. S.S. Chowdhury, 75 CWN 43].
(7) A suit to refund of tax paid under compulsion. [Govind Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1961 MP 320]. (8) A suit for recovery of the amount deducted from the contractor’s bill by the employee.
[Rup Chand v. Maharashtra State Road Corporation, (1992) 2 Cur.Civ.Cas.
33 (Bom.)]. (9) A suit by a Government employee challenging the order withholding the increments. [State of Punjab v.
Darshan Kumar, 1955 Supp. (4) SCC 220]. (10) A suit for annulment of order of dismissal from services. [Union of India v. Nandanlal, AIR 1996 SC 2206]. (11) A suit to enforce the award. [Bhagirathi Prasad v. Badri Prasad, AIR 1957 MP 234].
(12) A suit against the son to enforce liability under Mitakshara Law to pay the father’s debt after his death. [Jivram v. Kantilal, AIR 1950 Bom.
247]. (13) A suit for recovery of balance money due on promissory note. [Sri Balaji Traders v. Ponnuri Lakshmaiah, AIR 2002 AP 234]. (14) A suit by a trespasser against the owner for compensation for the improvement made by him before he is evicted.
[Rev. Father K.C.
Alixandar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 Ker. 72]. (15) A suit for recovery for necessaries supplied to minor. [Rajaratna v. Skheil Mahboob, AIR 1940 Mad.
106]. (16) A suit for recovery of electricity dues. [P.
Ramachandraiah Chetty v. A.P. State Electricity Board, AIR 2003 AP 338]. (17) A suit by contractor for payment for extra work not covered by terms of agreement.
[Nathoolal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1973 Raj. 350]. The time of limitation is three years and if filed beyond three years of the date on which the right to sue accrues, the suit is barred by limitation.