Supreme Court allows deficit deposit in pre-emption suit: Kanihya vs. Sukhi Ram (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 03, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 374
Judges: Rajesh Bindal, J. and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, J.

Can a minor error in depositing the full amount in a pre-emption suit lead to the dismissal of the suit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a small deficit of ₹14 occurred due to a calculation error. This judgment clarifies the court’s power to extend time for deposits in such cases, especially when the error is unintentional and minor. The bench comprised of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale.

Case Background

The case revolves around a pre-emption suit concerning land in Haryana. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, sought to exercise their right to purchase land sold to the respondents. The Trial Court decreed the suit on August 11, 1988, requiring the appellants to deposit ₹9,214, minus 1/5th already deposited, by October 10, 1988. The appellants applied to deposit the amount on September 19, 1988, and the court ordered a deposit of ₹7,600. However, the actual amount required was ₹7,614, resulting in a deficit of ₹14. The respondents then sought dismissal of the suit due to non-compliance with the decree.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed the appellant’s application to deposit the deficit amount of ₹14. The appellants then filed a Revision Petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Initially, the High Court allowed the revision on December 4, 2008, invoking its inherent jurisdiction to correct the error. However, on a Review Application filed by the respondents, the High Court recalled its earlier order on October 26, 2009, and dismissed the revision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the application of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This section grants the court the power to extend time for the performance of any act allowed by the court, even if the originally set time has expired. The court has the discretion to extend the time if it is satisfied that there was a genuine reason for the delay and that the party was not negligent. The Supreme Court also considered the principle of *“actus curiae neminem gravabit”* which means that an act of the court shall prejudice no man.

The relevant text of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not provided in the source document.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• ✓ The appellants argued that they were illiterate and that the deficit of ₹14 was due to a calculation error, not intentional negligence.
• ✓ They contended that the court itself had directed the deposit of ₹7,600, and the error was not solely their fault.
• ✓ They relied on the judgments in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others [(1989) 4 SCC 403] and Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and Others [(1964) 2 SCR 145] to argue that the court has the power to extend time for deposit in case of a bona fide error.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with the decree by not depositing the full amount within the stipulated time.
• ✓ They pointed out that the court’s order to deposit ₹7,600 was based on the appellant’s application and the pre-filled Treasury Challan, and the court was not responsible for calculating the amount.
• ✓ They argued that the appellants’ application to deposit the deficit was filed after a significant delay without sufficient reason.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in recalling its order and dismissing the revision petition, thereby denying the appellants the opportunity to rectify the minor deficit in the deposit amount.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• ✓ Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others [(1989) 4 SCC 403] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the view that the court has the power to extend time for deposit even after the expiry of the original time, especially when the deficit is minor and due to an inadvertent error. The court in Johri Singh held that the court can extend time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the deficit is small and due to an error.
• ✓ Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and Others [(1964) 2 SCR 145] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the court can extend time when the mistake was a result of, or induced by, an action of the court, applying the maxim *“actus curiae neminem gravabit”*.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• ✓ Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This provision was considered to determine the court’s power to extend time for the deposit of money in a pre-emption suit. The court used this provision to allow the appellants to deposit the deficit amount.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court relied on Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others [(1989) 4 SCC 403], stating that the court has the power to extend time for deposit even after the expiry of the original time, especially when the deficit is minor and due to an inadvertent error. The court also relied on Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and Others [(1964) 2 SCR 145], emphasizing that the court can extend time when the mistake was a result of, or induced by, an action of the court, applying the maxim *“actus curiae neminem gravabit”*. The Court also applied Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to justify the extension of time for the appellants to deposit the deficit amount.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The minor nature of the deficit (₹14) and the fact that it was due to an unintentional calculation error.
• ✓ The court’s own role in directing the deposit of ₹7,600, which contributed to the error.
• ✓ The principle that a party should not suffer due to a court’s error (*“actus curiae neminem gravabit”*).
• ✓ The fact that the appellants had already deposited a substantial portion of the amount and were ready to rectify the deficit.
• ✓ The precedents in Johri Singh and Jang Singh, which supported the court’s power to extend time in such circumstances.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as strict adherence to the time limit for deposit. However, it rejected this view, emphasizing the court’s power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to extend time in cases of genuine error. The court also noted that the error was partly due to the court’s own direction, applying the principle that an act of the court should not prejudice any party.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in recalling its earlier order. The court emphasized that the deficit was minor, the error was unintentional, and the appellants were ready to rectify it. The court also noted that the court itself had directed the deposit of ₹7,600, which contributed to the error. The court allowed the appeal and permitted the appellants to deposit the deficit amount.

The key reasons for the decision were:

• ✓ The deficit was only ₹14, a very small amount.
• ✓ The error was due to a calculation mistake and not intentional negligence.
• ✓ The court itself had directed the deposit of ₹7,600.
• ✓ The appellants were ready to rectify the error.
• ✓ The court has the power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to extend time in such cases.
• ✓ The principle that an act of the court should not prejudice any party (*“actus curiae neminem gravabit”*).

“In the third category of cases, namely, non -deposit of only a relatively small fraction of the purchase money due to inadvertent mistake whether or not caused by any action of the court, the court has the discretion under Section 148 CPC to extend the time even though the time fixed has already expired provided it is satisfied that the mistake is bona fide and was not indicative of negligence or inaction.”

“The amount of ‘zare -panjum’ was not specified. Parties do not controvert that it was one fifth. But the amount was not calculated by the court itself. Inadvertent error crept in arithmetical calculation. The deficit of Rs 100 was a very small fraction of the total payable amount of Rs 33,682 which was paid very much within the fixed time, and there was no reason, except for the mistake, as to why he would not have paid this Rs 100 also within time.”

“In this view of the matter there seems to be no manner of doubt that the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to extend the time under Section 148 CPC on sufficient cause being made out.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Courts have the power to extend time for depositing amounts in pre-emption suits under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even after the original deadline, especially when the deficit is minor and due to an inadvertent error.
• ✓ Parties should not suffer due to errors made by the court or its officials. The principle of *“actus curiae neminem gravabit”* will be applied.
• ✓ It is crucial to address minor errors promptly and seek the court’s permission to rectify them.
• ✓ This judgment provides flexibility in cases where there is an unintentional error in calculation and deposit, preventing injustice due to minor discrepancies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• ✓ The appellants were permitted to deposit a sum of ₹14 in the Trial Court on or before May 20, 2024.
• ✓ The respondents were entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited in the court.
• ✓ The appellants were directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 to the respondents, to be deposited in the Trial Court within the same time frame.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts have the power to extend time for depositing amounts in pre-emption suits under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even after the original deadline, especially when the deficit is minor and due to an inadvertent error. This judgment reinforces the principle that a party should not suffer due to a court’s error and provides a more flexible approach to dealing with minor discrepancies in deposit amounts. This decision clarifies the application of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in pre-emption suits, ensuring that minor, unintentional errors do not lead to the dismissal of a suit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the appellants should be allowed to rectify the minor deficit of ₹14, emphasizing that the error was unintentional and the court itself had played a role in the mistake. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should be flexible in extending time for deposits in pre-emption suits when there is a genuine error, and ensures that minor discrepancies do not lead to injustice. The Court also directed the appellants to pay costs to the respondents for the prolonged litigation.