Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from execution proceedings following a compromise decree for pre-emption passed in favour of the appellant, a pre-emptor, on October 25, 1957, by the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sirsa. The decree directed the pre-emptor to deposit Rs. 5951 less Rs. 1000 already deposited by May 1, 1958, failing which the suit would stand dismissed with costs. On January 6, 1958, the pre-emptor, an illiterate person, applied to the Sub-Judge to deposit the balance. The court's execution clerk prepared a challan showing Rs. 4950 instead of the correct Rs. 4951. The pre-emptor deposited the amount shown in the challan the same day. In May 1958, he obtained an order for possession. The second respondent, the vendee, later applied for payment and discovered the deposit was short by one rupee. The Sub-Judge accepted the vendee's application, dismissed the pre-emption suit, and directed restoration of possession. The District Judge reversed the Sub-Judge, holding that the court and its clerk had made a mistake which excused the pre-emptor and treated the deposit as sufficient compliance. The High Court, in a second appeal, restored the Sub-Judge's order, holding that the decree had not been complied with and time could not be extended in pre-emption cases. The Supreme Court granted special leave. The Court noted that the challan was prepared under court direction and that the pre-emptor was illiterate. The Execution Clerk's testimony established that the procedure required a report on the amount in deposit and then a court order before the challan was prepared. The Court held that where a litigant seeks court assistance to comply with a decree, the court must furnish correct information. If the court makes a mistake, the responsibility is shared, and the litigant cannot be held solely responsible. The High Court erred in treating the matter as one of extension of time and in reversing the District Judge's factual finding. The Court applied the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, stating that no act of courts should harm a litigant. The District Judge was right to set aside the dismissal but wrong to hold the decree was sufficiently complied with without requiring payment of the deficit. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the pre-emptor to deposit Re. 1 within one month from receipt of the record by the Sub-Judge, Sirsa. The Court expressly did not decide whether a court can extend time for deposit in a pre-emption decree. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Pre-emption Decree - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - Not specified - The pre-emptor obtained a compromise decree requiring deposit of Rs. 4951 by a date, but the court clerk prepared a challan for Rs. 4950, causing a one rupee shortfall. The Sub-Judge dismissed the suit for non-compliance; the District Judge set aside the dismissal; the High Court restored the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that where a litigant seeks the court's assistance to comply with a decree and the court makes a mistake in furnishing information, the responsibility is shared by the court, and the litigant who acts on that information cannot be held solely responsible. The court applied the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit and directed the pre-emptor to deposit the deficient one rupee, restoring the parties to the position before the error. Held that the appeal should be allowed and the pre-emption decree should not be dismissed due to the court's mistake (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a pre-emption decree should be dismissed when the pre-emptor deposited one rupee less than the decretal amount due to a clerical error committed by the court and its officers, and whether the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit protects the litigant from the consequences of such court-made mistake.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Punjab High Court, and restored the District Judge's decision with modification. The Court held that the error was substantially the making of the court and that the pre-emption suit should not be dismissed. The appellant was directed to deposit Re. 1 within one month from the receipt of the record by the Court of Sub-Judge, Sirsa. The parties were relegated to the position they occupied on January 6, 1958. The Court expressly did not decide whether a court can extend time for deposit in a pre-emption decree. No order as to costs was made throughout.
Law Points
- actus curiae neminem gravabit
- litigant not to suffer for court's mistake
- court must ensure correct information when assisting litigant
- responsibility for court's mistake is shared by court
- court cannot hold litigant responsible for mistake it caused
- bounden duty of court to restore litigant to position before mistake
- act of court should harm no one
