1. Suit for pre-emption — Compromise decree for deposit of amount — Deposit short by one rupee due to incorrect challan issued by court clerk. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Jang Singh, Appellant
Versus
Brij Lal and others., Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 687 of 1962, dated 20th February, 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. L. Mehta, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. K. L. Gosain, Senior Advocate, (M/s. K. K. Jain and P. C. Khanna, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
Advocates:
K.K.JAIN, K.L.GOSAI, K.L.Mehta, P.C.Khanna
K.K.JAIN, K.L.GOSAI, K.L.Mehta, P.C.Khanna
Applying the maxim 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit', the court held that a litigant cannot be penalized for a mistake made by the court or its officers. The court must rectify its own errors to ensure no party is harmed by the court's actions.
Headnote:(A) Pre-emption - Deposit of decretal amount - Error by Court - Actus curiae neminem gravabit - Where a litigant seeks assistance from the Court to fulfill obligations under a decree and the Court, through its officers, provides incorrect information, such as an incorrect amount in a challan, the responsibility for the mistake is shared by the Court - A litigant acting on the faith of such information cannot be held responsible for a mistake caused by the Court - No act of the Court should harm a litigant, and it is the duty of the Court to ensure that a person harmed by a mistake of the Court is restored to the position they would have occupied but for that mistake. (Para 6)
(B) Execution of Decree - Compliance - Where a shortfall in deposit is due to a clerical error by the Court, the suit should not be dismissed for non-compliance, but the mistake should be rectified by allowing the litigant to deposit the balance amount. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A suit for pre-emption resulted in a compromise decree directing the deposit of a specific amount by a certain date, failing which the suit would be dismissed. The litigant applied to the Court for the deposit, and the Court's clerk prepared a challan for an amount short by one rupee. The litigant deposited the amount as per the challan. Subsequently, the suit was ordered to be dismissed due to the shortfall. The District Judge set aside the dismissal, holding the Court shared responsibility, but the High Court restored the dismissal, holding that the time for deposit could not be extended.
Findings of Court:
The error was substantially the making of the Court as the challan was prepared under the Court's direction. The litigant relied on the Court's officers. The High Court erred in treating the matter as an extension of time rather than a rectification of a court error. The Court held that the mistake must be set right by allowing the deposit of the remaining amount.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of a suit for pre-emption is justified when the failure to deposit the full decretal amount was caused by a mistake in the challan prepared by the Court's office.
Ratio Decidendi: Based on the maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit", the Court ruled that a litigant should not be penalized for a mistake committed by the Court. The Court must undo its own error and restore the party to the position they would have been in had the mistake not occurred.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to deposit the exact decretal amount due to a court-issued incorrect challan warrants dismissal of a pre-emption suit. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Litigants relying on court-provided information for fulfilling decretal obligations should not be penalized for errors committed by court officers. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Actus curiae neminem gravabit — No act of court shall harm a litigant; mistakes by the court must be rectified to restore the litigant's position. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Appellant directed to deposit the remaining balance to rectify the court's error. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. What is the legal effect of a court's mistake that harms a litigant?
Under the maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit, no act of the court should harm a litigant. If a person is harmed by a mistake of the court, the court has a bounden duty to restore them to the position they would have occupied but for that mistake. (Para 6 )
7. Does a litigant's partial negligence excuse a court's error in providing incorrect information for fulfilling a decree?
No. While litigants must be vigilant, if they seek court assistance to fulfill obligations and the court provides incorrect information, the court shares responsibility. The suit cannot be dismissed solely based on the litigant's partial negligence when the court caused the error. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. How should a court handle a situation where a decretal amount was under-deposited due to a court-issued incorrect challan?
The court should not dismiss the suit but must rectify the mistake by allowing the litigant to deposit the remaining balance, effectively restoring the parties to the position they occupied before the error occurred. (Para 7 , 8 )
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This appeal with the special leave of this Court arises out of execution of a decree for pre-emption passed in favour of the appellant Jang Singh. By the order under appeal the High Court has held that Jang Singh had not deposited the full amount as directed by the decree within the time allowed to him and his suit for pre-emption must therefore be ordered to be dismissed and also the other proceedings arising therefrom as there was no decree of which he could ask execution.
2. The facts of the case are simple. Jang Singh filed a suit for pre-emption of the sale of certain lands against Brij Lal the first respondent (the vendor), and Bhola Singh the second respondent (the vendee) in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa. On October 25, 1957, a compromise decree was passed in favour of Jang Singh and he was directed to deposit Rs. 5951 less Rs. 1,000 already deposited by him by the 1st of May, 1958. The decree also ordered that on his failing to make the deposit punctually his suit would stand dismissed with costs. On January 6, 1958, Jang Singh made an application to the Sub-Judge, Sirsa, for making the deposit of the balance of the amount of the decree. The Clerk of the Court, which was also the executing Court, prepared a challan in duplicate and handed it over with the application to Jang Singh so that the amount might be deposited in the Bank. In the challan (and in the order passed on the application, so it is alleged) Rs. 4,950 were mentioned instead of Rs. 4,951. Jang Singh took the challan and the application and made the deposit of the wrong balance the same day and received one copy of the challan as an acknowledgement form the Bank.
3. In May, 1958, he applied for and received an order for possession of the land. It was reported by the Naib Nazir that the entire amount was deposited in Court. Bhola Singh then applied on May 25, 1958, to the Court for payment to him of the amount lying in deposit and it was reported by the Naib Nazir on that application that Jang Singh had not deposited the correct amount and the deposit was short by one rupee. Bhola Singh applied to the Court for dismissal of Jang Singh s suit, and for recall of all the orders made in Jang Singh s favour. The Sub-Judge, Sirsa accepted Bhola Singh s application observing that in pre-emption cases a Court had no power to extend the time fixed by the decree for payment of the price and the pre-emptor by his failure to deposit the correct amount had incurred the dismissal of the suit under the decree. He ordered also the reversal of the earlier orders passed by him in favour of Jang Singh and directed that possession of the fields be restored to the opposite party.
4. Jang Singh appealed against that order. The District Judge recorded the evidence of the Execution Clerk, the Revenue Accountant, Treasury Office and Jang Singh. He also examined Bhola Singh. The learned District Judge held that the record of the case showed that on the day of the case was compromised and the decree was passed Jang Singh was not present and did not know the exact decretal amount. The learned District Judge assumed that it was the duty of Jang Singh to be punctual and to find out the exact amount before he made the deposit. He, however, held that a Jang Singh had approached the Court with an application intending to make the deposit to be ordered by the Court and the Court and its clerk made a mistake by ordering him to deposit an amount which was less by one rupee. Jang Singh was excused inasmuch as the responsibility was shared by the Court. The learned District Judge, therefore, held that this was a case in which Jang Singh deserved to be relieved and he came to the conclusion that Jang Singh was prevented from depositing the full amount by the act of the Court. He concluded "thus the deposit made was a sufficient compliance with the terms of the decree". The order of the Sub-Judge, Sisra, dismissing the suit was set aside.
5. Bhola Singh appea
