1. This second appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge in appeal, dismissing the appellant's application under S.22 of Act 31 of 1958, in reversal of the order of the Munsiff. Under S.22 (1) (a) of the Act, the appellant was bound to deposit one half of the purchase-money, in addition to the costs of execution. The purchase-money being Rs. 605.25 p., the appellant was bound to deposit Rs. 302.63 p., but the deposit as made by her was short by 12 p. The appellant's prayer to set aside the sale was granted by the Munsiff, relying on the maxim, de minimis non curat lex; afterwards the appellant made good the deposit by paying 12 p. more as permitted. The Judge, however felt constrained by the weight of certain decided cases referred to by him, to negative the application of the maxim. The question for consideration in second appeal is whether this view of the judge is right or not.

2. This second appeal being not maintainable, the appellant moved C.M.P. 8116 of 1964 for converting it into a revision petition; allowing the petition, I treat this second appeal as a civil revision petition.

3. The following is an extract from the exposition of the maxim by Herbert Broom, in his work on "A Selection of Legal Maxims", 10th edition, pages 89 and 90:

"Where trifling irregularities or even infractions Of the strict letter of the law are brought under the notice of the Court, the maxim de minimis non curat lex is of frequent practical application. It has, for instance, been applied to support a rate, in the assessment of which there were some comparatively trifling omissions of established forms. So, with reference to proceedings for an infringement of the revenue laws, Sir W. Scott observed that the Court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in the application of statutes. The law permits the qualification implied in the ancient maxim, de minimis non curat lex. Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked."

I see noting in the present case, which precludes the application of the maxim for ignoring this deficit of 12 p. in the deposit made by the appellant, which itself was made up afterwards, though beyond time. In applying the maxim, it does not seem material that the trifle ignored, amounted to an infraction of a mandatory provision of law or as stated above of the strict letter of the law, because the principle is that trifles shall be ignored, in other words, trifling deviations shall be deemed non est. The maxim does not in my opinion clash with the general rule of interpretation, that a provision like S.22 by which vested rights are divested, must be strictly complied with.

4. In Mt. Rukmini Kuer v. Balmik Prasad A.I.R. 1937 Patna 409 relied on for the appellant, there was a deficit of four annas in the deposit made under Order XXXI, R.89, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale; the maxim was applied and the deficiency in the deposit was overlooked. Other cases, referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, in which mistakes of the court or of its officer had supervened are distinguishable and need not be considered. Kalidasa Chetty v. Dodda Siddh Chetty A.I.R. 1947 Madras 56 however, was a case of deficiency in deposit of Re. 1-4-0 and the maxim was relied on at the hearing, but the judge felt bound to follow the bench decision in Kalinga Hebbra v. Narasimha Hebbra 21 M. L. J. 631. The latter was decided under S.310-A of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 corresponding to Order XXI, R.89 of the Code of 1908; the amount of shortage in the deposit is not ascertainable from the report of the case. It was ruled that the right conferred on the judgment-debtor by S.310-A is a special right and that it must be strictly complied with. The