vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt

‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt’ i.e. the law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights.

Latin: the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon.

Law will help only those who are vigilant.

Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim one’s right, she/he must be watchful of his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using his/her rights, are entitled to the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights.

Usually, law prescribes statutory limitations for enforcing one’s relief against another. One cannot institute a suit after the prescribed statutory period. A person who has kept mum during the statutory period cannot claim for the enforcement of right after the statutory limitation.

Case law:

Halsbury’s Laws of England (Third Edition, Vol. 24), Article 330 at p. 181, says as under:-

“The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim and (3) that persons with good causes of action should persue them with reasonable diligence.”

2020 SCeJ 1702: SAGUFA AHMED v. UPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD

Law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them.

Tilokchand Motichand & Others vs H.B. Munshi & Another [(1955) 1 S.C.R. 168, (1969) 1 SCC 110]

Under peculiar circumstances, however, excusing or justifying the delay, courts of equity would not refuse their aid in furtherance of the rights of the party; since in such cases there was no presence to insist upon laches or negligence, as a ground for dismissal of the suit; and in one case carried back the account over a period of fifty years.

“65. The Limitation Acts do not in terms apply to claims against the State in respect of violation of fundamental rights. A person complaining of infraction of any such rights has one of three courses open to him. He can either make an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to a High Court or he can make an application to this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, or he can file a suit asking for appropriate reliefs.

The decisions of various High Courts in India have firmly laid down that in the matter of the issue of a writ under Article 226 the courts have a discretion and may in suitable cases refuse to give relief to the person approaching it even though on the merits the applicant has a substantial complaint as regards violation of fundamental rights. Although the Limitation Act does not apply, the courts have refused to give relief in cases of long or unreasonable delay. As noted above in Bhailal Bhai case it was observed that the “maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured”. On the question of delay, we see no reason to hold that a different test ought to be applied when a party comes to this Court under Article 32 from one applicable to applications under Article 226.”

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Ucb on 29 June, 2005, Equivalent citations: 2005 (31) PTC 14 Guj ( Gujarat High Court)

…..2. On filing of counter statement by the applicant, a copy thereof was served on the opponent vide official letter dated 18.07.2003 calling upon him to file evidence in support of opposition. But, the opponent did not file evidence within the prescribed/extended time…..

15…….I am cautious with the proposition that the evidence should not be shut down. But, at the same time in the circumstances, when the provision of Rule 50(2) are made mandatory with an absolute legal fiction, and Rule 50(1) has mandate of S. 21(4) in accordance with S. 21(S) as stated above, the opponent should not be allowed to file his evidence at his sweet will at any point of time in violation law. ……..

…The law cannot help them. The equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Taking excuse as one of the grounds that opponent attorney’s computer data was corrupted due to computer viruses cannot be believed as they have not filed any proof to that effect….

B.L. Sreedhar & Ors vs K.M. Munireddy (Dead) And Ors. [AIR 2003 SC 578]

In this case it was held that Delay defeats equities, or, equity aids the vigilant and not the indolo Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt.”

Nacinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2000),

Given the aphorism that ‘to err, is human’, could practically lead to unintentional situations despite being vigilant, which could attract the commission of an offense. The Courts should not always find means to pull down the shutters of adjudication before a party seeking justice, instead should take measures to entertain all possible cases of grievances, if it is genuine.

Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanke Venkata Reddy And Ors. [1993 (2) BLJR 875]

The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim: vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating to cruelty against women.

Vanka Radhamanohari v Vanke Venkata Reddy and Ors. [1993 (2) BLJR 875]

“An exception to this maxim was observed in this which involved a criminal case of cruelty to a woman under Section 498-A. The Court observed that, given the gravity of the offense committed and with respect to the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the maxim would not be applicable in this case and the case will be admitted in case of offenses relating to cruelty against women.”

Beg Ram And Anr. vs Charan Das And Others [16th May 1955]

In this case it was mentioned that On the principles, however, that the interests of the State require that a period should be put to litigation (Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium), and that a party who is not prompt in asserting his claim does not deserve the aid of the State in enforcing it (Vigilantibus, non dormientibus jura subveniunt) it is necessary that the exercise of every right should be subject to a period of limitation. A right of revision, though more limited in scope than a right of appeal, is nonetheless a right, so that, if no period of limitation is specifically prescribed therefore in the Limitation Act it is expedient that the ninety-days rule of limitation in the case of an appeal should also be adopted in the case of a revision.