Case Note & Summary
The case involves a pre-emption suit filed by the appellants' predecessor-in-interest against the respondents. The suit was decreed on 11.08.1988, requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 9,214/- minus 1/5th already deposited, by 10.10.1988. On 19.09.1988, the appellants moved an application seeking permission to deposit the balance amount, annexing a Treasury Challan for Rs. 7,600/-. The Trial Court endorsed the application, directing deposit of Rs. 7,600/-, which was deposited the same day. However, the correct amount was Rs. 7,614/-, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 14/-. On 06.12.1988, the respondents sought withdrawal of the deposited amount, and the office reported the deficit. On 23.02.1989, the respondents moved for dismissal of the suit for non-compliance. The appellants then filed applications on 05.03.1991 and 25.05.1991 seeking permission to deposit the deficit and condonation of delay. The Trial Court dismissed these applications on 09.01.1992. The appellants filed a revision before the High Court, which was initially allowed on 04.12.2008, permitting deposit of the deficit. However, on review by the respondents, the High Court recalled that order and dismissed the revision on 26.10.2009. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court erred in recalling its earlier order. The Court noted that the shortfall was due to a bona fide calculation error by both the appellants and the Trial Court, which directed deposit of the incorrect amount. The Court held that the power to extend time under Section 148 CPC exists, and the appellants should not suffer for a mistake that was not entirely their own. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's review order, and permitted the appellants to deposit the deficit amount of Rs. 14/- within four weeks, failing which the suit would stand dismissed.
Headnote
A) Pre-emption - Deficit Deposit - Bona Fide Error - Section 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 148 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants, decree-holders in a pre-emption suit, deposited Rs. 7,600/- as directed by the Trial Court, but the correct amount was Rs. 7,614/-. The shortfall of Rs. 14/- was due to a calculation error by the appellants and the court. The Supreme Court held that the court has power to extend time for deposit, and the appellants should not suffer for a bona fide error, especially when the court itself contributed to the mistake. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were permitted to deposit the deficit amount. (Paras 1-14) B) Pre-emption - Extension of Time - Sufficient Cause - Section 148 CPC - The respondents argued that the appellants failed to deposit the full amount within the stipulated time and moved for dismissal after a delay. The Supreme Court found that the appellants acted bona fide and the delay in seeking to deposit the deficit was not fatal. The court emphasized that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, and the meagre amount of Rs. 14/- should not lead to dismissal of the suit. (Paras 4-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in recalling its earlier order allowing the appellants to deposit the deficit amount of Rs. 14/- in a pre-emption suit, given that the shortfall was due to a bona fide calculation error and the court itself had directed deposit of the incorrect amount.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of High Court dated 26.10.2009 set aside. Order of High Court dated 04.12.2008 restored. Appellants permitted to deposit deficit amount of Rs. 14/- within four weeks, failing which suit shall stand dismissed.
Law Points
- Pre-emption
- Deficit deposit
- Bona fide error
- Extension of time
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 148 CPC
