Even though the harm caused by the conduct may continue, a wrongful act that results in a complete injury is not considered a continuing wrong for the purposes of Section 23 of the Limitation Act.

Even though the harm caused by the conduct may continue, a wrongful act that results in a complete injury is not considered a continuing wrong for the purposes of Section 23 of the Limitation Act.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that S. 23 does not refer to a continuing right but rather to a continuing wrong, which is an ongoing cause of harm that makes the person who committed the act responsible and liable for the continuation of the harm.

The Supreme Court issued the aforementioned ruling in Civil Appeal No. 11020 of 2018, which was resolved on September 2, 2019, in the matter of Vashdeo R. Bhojwani vs. Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd.

In the instant case titled Vashdeo R Bhojwani Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Anr. The issue raised for clarification before the Supreme Court was:


  1. Whether the claim in the suit is time barred?

With regard to this issue, the The Supreme Court cited a previous ruling in which it was determined that S.23 does not refer to a continuing right but rather to a continuing wrong in Balkrishna Savalram Pujari and Others vs. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan. A continuing wrong must be an act that results in an ongoing source of harm and makes the person who committed the act accountable and liable for the ongoing nature of the harm. Even though the damage caused by the conduct may continue, there is no ongoing wrong if the unlawful act results in a complete injury. However, a wrongdoing is a continuing wrong if its nature results in continued harm from the original wrongdoing.

Based on the aforementioned decision, the Supreme Court determined that the claim in the current lawsuit was time-barred because when the Recovery Certificate dated 24.12.2001 was issued, it effectively and completely infringed upon the appellant's rights. As a result, the statute of limitations would have started to run.

The Court categorically stated that,

"Even though the harm caused by the conduct may continue, a wrongful act that results in a complete injury is not considered a continuing wrong for the purposes of Section 23 of the Limitation Act."