Repeated Representations Cannot Revive Stale Money Claims or Extend the Period of Limitation Under Writ Jurisdiction

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, entered into an agreement (No. DGM/TA/TC/04-05/AGT-37) with SAIL on August 5, 2005.

The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2026 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release a final bill amount of ₹2,70,000 and a security deposit of ₹1,00,000, totaling ₹3,70,000.

The petitioner claimed these amounts became due on April 29, 2008.

The petitioner argued that although the respondents admitted the debt in 2008, they failed to disburse it despite numerous representations made over the years.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained to enforce a money claim that is prima facie barred by the statute of limitation.

2. Whether the continuous filing of representations by a claimant serves to extend the period of limitation for a stale claim.

the period of limitation for a money claim against a respondent is three years.

Supreme Court precedents in Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. (2022), which established that mere representations do not extend limitation and that High Courts should dismiss petitions guilty of delay and laches at the threshold.

Damor Nanabhai Manabhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat Ors. (2025), which disapproved of using repeated representations to revive "stale or dead claims" and clarified that the rejection of such representations does not provide a fresh cause of action.

The Court observed that the petitioner was seeking to enforce a claim that originated in 2008, nearly eighteen years prior to the filing of the writ petition in 2026.

The Court reasoned that since the statutory limitation for money claims is three years, the petitioner’s claim was "hopelessly barred".

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding pending representations, noting that even if the respondents had admitted the claim in 2008, the cause of action was long exhausted.

Applying the doctrine of laches, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to approach the Court within a reasonable time and that the device of "repeated representations" cannot be used to circumvent the law of limitation or create a fresh cause of action.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that stale claims cannot be revived through representations and must be dismissed for delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.