Judgment

BAHARUL ISLAM, J. - In this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution, the appellant is the victim of Courts craze for technicalities of law at the cost of justice. This Court exercises its discretionary power under Art. 136 of the Constitution to meet the ends of justice or to remove miscarriage of justice perpetrated in a case.

2. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated thus. The appellant was the plaintiff in a pre-emption suit and, got a decree. Respondent No. 1 was the vendee and respondent No. 2, who was the real brother of the plaintiff-appellant, was the vendor. The suit was for pre-emption and possession in respect of some agricultural land. The trial Court decreed the suit on payment of Rupees 15,500/- as the price of the land and Rs. 100/- as the charges on account of registration and other charges of the deed. The appellant deposited the amount as directed by the Court.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge who heard and disposed of the appeal dismissed. the appeal with the modification directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,836.25 more in the trial Court for payment to the vendee, within 15-4-1967; in case of failure the suit was directed to be dismissed. On 14-4-1967, the appellant deposited Rs. 1,836.00 instead of Rs. 1,836.25. He, however, made good the short deposit of 25 paise on 28-10-1968 with the permission of the Court on the allegation that the omission to deposit 25 paise was due to bona fide mistake. Respondent No. 1 filed a regular second appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court affirmed the decree of the first appellate Court but ordered the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 500.00 for the improvements made to the land. The appellant was given three months time to make the payment of the said sum of Rs. 500.00 failing which, it was directed, the suit would stand dismissed. The appellant deposited this sum too within the time limit.

4. The appellant on 28-10-1968 filed an execution case before the executing Court to get possession of the suit land. The executing Court issued notice to the judgment. debtor (respondent No. 1 herein). The judgment-debtor filed an application under O. 14, R. 14 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant was directed to make the payment of the sum of Rs. 1,836.25 within April 16, 1967, but the appellant had deposited only a sum of Rs. 1,836.00 within the due date and the amount fell short of 25 paise, and as such the execution proceedings should be struck off. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the objection petition of the judgment-debtor. His plea was that the short deposit of 25 paise was due to a bona fide mistake on his part, but that the shortage was made good on Oct. 28, 1968 after obtaining necessary permission from the trial Court. The executing Court, by its order dated Feb.1, 1969, held that the short deposit of 25 paise was due to a bona fide mistake, an the part of the decree-holder and overruled the objection of the judgment-debtor, taking the view that in the interest of justice, the default on the part of the decree-holder should be condoned. The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal in the Court of the IInd Additional District Judge, who, by his order dated Oct. 24, 1965 set aside the order of the executing Court. He held that the provisions of O. 20, R. 14 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure were mandatory, and as such the suit should be deemed to have stood dismissed. He also held that the short deposit of 25 paise was not on account of mistake and the default could not be condoned.

5. The appellant preferred a second execution appeal, being Execution Second Appeal No. 1941 of 1966 in the High Court. The appeal was however presented, without a certified copy of the order of the executing Court. The appellant, however, made an appl