Is Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandatory in nature? Discuss.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act) provides that any suit, appeal or application if made beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it is the duty of the Court not to proceed with such suits irrespective of the fact whether the plea of limitation has been set up in defence or not. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act are mandatory. The Court can suo motu take note of question of limitation. The question whether a suit is barred by limitation should be decided on the facts as they stood on the date of presentation of the plaint. It is a vital section upon which the whole limitation Act depends for its efficacy. The Court is under an obligation to dismiss a suit if it is filed beyond the time prescribed by the Limitation Act. The provisions of Section 3 are mandatory and the Court will not proceed with the suit if it is barred by time. Under Section 3 of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and the application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed. Even though limitation has not been set up as a defence. However, the effect of Section 3 is not to deprive the Court of its jurisdiction. Therefore, decision of a Court allowing a suit which had been instituted after the period prescribed is not vitiated for want of jurisdiction. A decree passed in a time barred suit is not a nullity. In case of Noharlal Verma vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, (SC), 2008 , the Supreme Court observed that, if the statute stipulates a particular period of limitation, no concession or order would make an application barred by time to be within the limitation and the authority had no jurisdiction to consider such application on merits.