9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against execution of a decree for pre-emption due to incorrect deposit amount leading to dismissal of the suit. Analysis: The appeal arose from the execution of a pre-emption decree favoring the appellant, Jang Singh. The High Court held that Jang Singh failed to deposit the full amount as directed by the decree within the stipulated time, resulting in the dismissal of his pre-emption suit and related proceedings. The facts revealed that Jang Singh, an illiterate individual, deposited an incorrect amount due to a mistake in the court's order and challan. The District Judge found that Jang Singh relied on the court's directions and shared responsibility for the error, leading to a sufficient compliance with the decree. The District Judge set aside the Sub Judge's dismissal order, emphasizing the court's contribution to the mistake. The High Court, however, reversed the District Judge's decision, stating that the decree was not complied with and that the court could not extend the time for payment in pre-emption cases. The High Court's judgment was based on the belief that Jang Singh should have been more vigilant, disregarding the court's role in providing incorrect information. The High Court failed to consider the court's responsibility in guiding litigants accurately. The principle of "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" was highlighted, emphasizing the court's duty to rectify its mistakes and prevent harm to litigants. The Supreme Court analyzed the case, noting the court's error in directing the deposit amount and the subsequent reliance of Jang Singh on this information. The Court emphasized that Jang Singh promptly followed the court's instructions, and any negligence on his part was overshadowed by the court's mistake. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision and ordered Jang Singh to deposit the additional amount to rectify the court's mistake. The Court clarified that the question of extending the time for deposit did not apply in this case, focusing solely on correcting the court's error. The appeal was allowed, directing Jang Singh to deposit the outstanding amount within a specified time, ensuring no costs were awarded due to the unique circumstances of the case.
|
