Statute of Limitations (Hadamyad / हदम्याद) in Nepal: Filing Deadlines by Case Type

Hadamyad (हदम्याद) is the Nepali legal term for the statute of limitations: the fixed period within which an aggrieved person must lodge a complaint (ujuri) or file a plaint (firaad) before a court or authority. Once the period lapses, the right to pursue the matter is ordinarily extinguished, no matter how strong the underlying claim is. The doctrine exists to ensure disputes are raised while evidence and memory are fresh, to give defendants certainty, and to discourage stale litigation.

Nepal does not have a single consolidated limitation statute. Instead, time limits are scattered across the substantive and procedural codes that replaced the old Muluki Ain in 2018: principally the National Penal (Code) Act 2074 and National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act 2074 for offences, and the National Civil (Code) Act 2074 and National Civil Procedure (Code) Act 2074 for civil disputes, supplemented by special laws such as the Negotiable Instruments Act 2034. Because the deadline often depends on the precise offence and the governing section, identifying the correct limitation is the first practical step in any Nepali case.

An important distinction runs through the system: for many criminal offences the clock starts from the date the offence becomes known (date of knowledge), whereas for several civil and procedural claims it starts from the date the cause of action arose (such as the date of a breach, injury, or judgment).

The table below summarises the filing deadlines most frequently asked about in Nepal, together with the broad governing instrument. Where a figure is contested or subject to a special rule, that is noted. These are general durable rules; the exact starting date and any extension can turn on the facts, so the relevant section text should always be checked.

For ordinary offences the National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act 2074 fixes short limitation periods, commonly three, six, or twelve months, calculated from the date of the incident or, frequently, from the date the offence became known to the complainant. Defamation sits at the short end at three months, while forgery is graded by document type: six months for private or other documents and two years for public documents, reflecting the greater public interest in protecting official records.

Sexual and custodial offences attract particular attention. Rape must be reported within one year of commission under section 229 of the Penal Code, a period repeatedly criticised by Amnesty International, the ICJ, and the UN Human Rights Committee as too short for survivors, especially children, given trauma and stigma. The historical limit was far shorter — 35 days until 2015, then 180 days, before reaching one year with the 2017 code that took effect in 2018. Torture carries a six-month complaint limit, which UN bodies have likewise found incompatible with Nepal's international obligations.

At the other extreme, the gravest crimes are not time-barred at all. Homicide, genocide, trafficking in persons, corruption, and offences against the sovereignty of the state may be investigated and prosecuted regardless of how much time has passed, reflecting a policy that the most serious wrongs should never escape accountability through delay.

On the civil side, limitation periods are embedded in the National Civil (Code) Act 2074 rather than a standalone statute. Contractual claims generally run from the date of breach, claims on a written debt acknowledgment (tamasuk) run for a long period from execution or maturity, and tort claims vary by category. Medical negligence is treated as a civil wrong: section 684 of the Civil Code sets a six-month period to bring a compensation claim, although courts and commentators have debated applying a discovery rule where the harm only becomes apparent later, so that time runs from when the injury could reasonably be identified.

Cheque dishonour is governed by the Negotiable Instruments Act 2034 and is procedurally distinctive. Before suing, the payee must serve a written demand notice on the drawer; only if payment is not made within the stipulated period does the right to proceed crystallise. The frequently quoted '35 days' relates to this notice/demand step, not to the filing deadline itself. The Act's long-stop limitation (section 108) bars any complaint not filed within five years of the cause of action. Because banking-offence rules and procedural manuals in this area have been revised over time, the operative notice and filing steps should be confirmed against the current text.

Divorce is a notable exception to the limitation idea: there is no time bar on petitioning. Either spouse may file on valid grounds at any time, and mutual-consent divorce can be sought jointly whenever both agree (Civil Code provisions from section 93).

Nepali law recognises that strict deadlines can produce injustice, so it provides for extension and tolling in defined situations. Under section 58 of the National Civil Procedure (Code) Act 2074, if a plaint could not be filed within the prescribed period because of fraud, deceit, conspiracy, or circumstances beyond the party's control (force majeure), the limitation is treated as not having expired; the litigant must come to court with an application setting out the justifiable reason, typically within a short period from when the obstacle ended or the deception was discovered.

A second key protection is the minority rule. Where the person entitled to sue is a minor, the limitation clock is tolled during minority and begins to run only when the person attains the age of majority — 18 years in Nepal. This prevents a child's claim from being lost simply because no adult acted in time, and it is especially significant for claims arising from harm suffered in childhood.

Other accrual rules can also affect timing: a fresh written acknowledgment or part-payment of a debt can reset the period from the date of acknowledgment, and a continuing wrong can generate a fresh cause of action for as long as it persists. Because these mechanisms turn on precise facts and dates, anyone close to a deadline should seek timely legal advice rather than assume a claim is barred or alive.

For ordinary people, the practical lesson of hadamyad is speed: many of Nepal's most common grievances — defamation, forgery of a private document, medical negligence, torture — carry limitation periods measured in months, and missing the deadline usually ends the case before its merits are ever examined. Identifying the correct deadline and the date from which it runs is therefore as important as the substance of the complaint.

The short windows for sexual and custodial offences have driven sustained reform advocacy. International human-rights bodies and Nepali campaigners argue the one-year rape limit and six-month torture limit deny justice to survivors who need time to come forward, and they have called for these limits to be lengthened or removed entirely. Constitutional and public-interest litigation has been used to challenge them, and the courts have at times read in discovery-based or tolling principles to soften rigid application. Readers should treat the figures here as the durable framework while recognising that specific limits in sensitive areas remain subject to ongoing legal and legislative change.