Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE, JJ.
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Sukhi Ram & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2011
Decided On : 03-05-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 148 – Suit for pre-emption – Extension of time to deposit deficit decretal amount – Balance amount to be deposited by appellant (Pre-emptor) was not specified in decree – Deficiency was only Rs.14/- – Appellants had already deposited Rs.9,200/- including pre-emption amount – When application was filed seeking permission to deposit amount along with Treasury Challan, error was not noticed by Court – At the very first stage appellants stated that in case there is any deficiency, they are ready to make it good – Court could have considered the same and passed appropriate orders – Applicant (late predecessor in-interest of appellants) was in possession of property and mutation has already been entered in his name in revenue record – Impugned order passed by High Court and court below set aside and appellants permitted to deposit deficit amount in court below. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Vide order dated 09.01.1992, application filed by appellant seeking permission to deposit Rs.14/- was dismissed by Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, appellants preferred Revision Petition before High Court which was initially allowed on 04.12.2008. However, on a Review Application filed by respondents, order passed by High Court on 04.12.2008, was recalled and Civil Revision No.1645 of 1992 was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2009. It is aforesaid order which is under challenge in the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
On account of error on part of appellants, respondents were made to litigate for decades together upto this Court. It is appropriate to compensate them. Appellants directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondents.
Result : Appeal allowed.
1. The case in hand is an example of a party suffering on account of total casualness in dealing with the matter. An avoidable litigation.
2. The challenge is to the order,1[Dated 26.10.2009] passed by the High Court,2[High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh] in Review Application,3[R.A. No.2-C-II of 2009]. By the said order the Review Application filed by the respondents was allowed. As a result, the earlier order,4[Dated 04.12.2008] passed by the High Court in revision,5[Civil Revision No.1645 of 1992] was recalled. By the said order, the revision filed by the present appellants was allowed, permitting them to make good the deficit of Rs.14/-.
3. The facts as available on record are that part of land comprising of 1/4th share land in Khewat No.236 and Khatoni No.258 situated in Village Samchana, District Rohtak, Haryana, was sold by Jai Singh, Jai Kishan, Randhir, Shamsher Singh sons of Balbir Singh son of Dariyav Singh to Sukhi Ram, Ram Pal, Hari Om, Mahabir Singh (respondents-defendants). The predecessor in-interest of the appellants filed a suit for pre-emption. The same was decreed by the Trial Court on 11.08.1988. The predecessor in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs was required to deposit a sum of Rs.9,214/- minus 1/5th of the pre-emption amount already deposited, on or before 10.10.1988, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed.
3.1 Predecessor in-interest of the appellants filed an application on 19.09.1988 along with Treasury Challan in triplicate, seeking permission to deposit the amount as directed by the Trial Court. On the application the Trial Court passed the order for deposit of Rs.7,600/-. It was claimed that the application and the challans were handed over in original to the appellant(s). The amount was deposited on the same day i.e. 19.09.1988.
3.2 On 06.12.1988, an application was moved by the judgment-debtor (defendant-respondent) seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant-plaintiff on which a report was submitted by the office on the same day. It was found that the amount deposited by the appellant-plaintiff was less by Rs.14/-.
3.3 On 23.02.1989 the judgment-debtor (defendant-respondent) filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on account of non-compliance of the direction given in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, as there was failure on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff to deposit full amount within the time granted by the Trial Court. While the aforesaid application was pending, the appellant-plaintiff filed an application on 05.03.1991 seeking permission of the court to deposit deficit amount of Rs.14/-. Subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid application, an application dated 25.05.1991 was also filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking permission to make good the deficiency in deposit of the amount as per the decree of the Trial Court.
3.4 Vide order dated 09.01.1992, the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to deposit Rs.14/- was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants preferred Revision Petition before the High Court which was initially allowed on 04.12.2008. However, on a Review Application filed by the respondents, the order passed by the High Court on 04.12.2008, was recalled and Civil Revision No.1645 of 1992 was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2009. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in the present appeal.
4. Impugning the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are illiterate. In the case in hand, decree was passed in favour of the predecessor in-interest of the appellants on 11.08.1988 and the time was granted for deposit of the balance amount upto 10.10.1998 after reducing 1/5th of the amount already deposited in court. Accordingly, an application was moved seeking permission of the court to deposit the balance amount. On that application, order was passed by the court
Court is empowered to extend time for deposit of amount in case there is any error – Parties should not be made to suffer on account of any error in judicial proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict compliance with the mandatory requirement of depositing the entire sale consideration along with 10% levy with the pre-emption applicati....
The pre-emption application was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of depositing the entire sale consideration with 10% levy, as mandated by Section 8 of the West B....
The court established that the right of pre-emption requires strict compliance with the deposit of full consideration and 10%, as a precondition for maintaining the application.
The deposit of the entire consideration amount and the 10% levy at the time of filing the pre-emption application is a statutory and mandatory requirement under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955.
The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is mandatory and cannot be waived unless there are exceptional circumstances of complete f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the deposit requirement under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption applications. Non-complia....
Appeal – Any waiver of pre-deposit to entire extent would be against statutory provisions and not sustainable in law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
