Limitation on instalment decrees may run from a later default where an earlier default was waived or condoned.

In an instalment decree containing a default clause for the decree-holder's benefit, limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act is linked to the default actually relied on, not necessarily to the first default alone. If an earlier default is waived or condoned, it is treated as not pressed, and a later unwaived default can furnish a fresh cause of action for applying for final relief. The wording of the default clause is not decisive unless it clearly extinguishes the instalment arrangement on the first default. The operative effect is a liberal construction favouring the decree-holder where the clause is optional or beneficial.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a decree payable by instalments with a default clause, the expression "when the right to apply accrues" in Article 181 of the Limitation Act means the first default only or includes a fresh accrual on each successive default, and whether the default clause remains available where the decree-holder waives an earlier default.

Analysis: Article 181 makes limitation run from the date when the right to apply accrues, but that expression has to be understood with reference to the particular cause of action on which the application is founded. Where a decree contains instalment payments and a default clause inserted for the benefit of the decree-holder, the decree-holder is not necessarily confined to the first default if the earlier default is waived or condoned. In that event the earlier cause of action is treated as not being pressed, and a later unwaived default can furnish a fresh cause of action. The wording of the default clause is not decisive if, on its proper construction, the clause is meant to protect the decree-holder and does not clearly extinguish the instalment arrangement on the first default. The Court also treated the reasoning in prior authorities as supporting a liberal construction in favour of the decree-holder where the clause is optional or beneficial.

Conclusion: The right to apply did not necessarily accrue only on the first default. Where the first default was waived or condoned, limitation ran from the later default relied on, and the decree-holder could seek a final decree for instalments not already barred.

Ratio Decidendi: In an instalment decree with a default clause intended for the decree-holder's benefit, limitation under Article 181 runs from the default actually relied on, and a waived or condoned default does not prevent a later fresh default from giving rise to a new right to apply.

---