Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Courts Should Not Let Litigants Suffer Due to Trivial Mistakes in Judicial Proceedings– Supreme Court on Pre-Emption Suit Dismissal Over Minor Deposit Shortfall

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reversed the decisions of the High Court and lower courts, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in preventing miscarriage of justice due to minor procedural errors. The judgment arose from a pre-emption suit involving a trivial shortfall of ₹14 in the deposit amount required for property rights.

The central legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court revolved around the judicial discretion to rectify minor clerical or calculation errors during litigation. The apex court underscored the principle that trivial mistakes should not lead to severe repercussions like the dismissal of a suit, which could otherwise result in substantial injustice.

The dispute originated from a pre-emption suit where the appellants, successors of Kanihya (deceased), had been directed by the trial court to deposit ₹9,214 minus a previously deposited amount. Due to a clerical error, the appellants deposited ₹7,600 instead of ₹7,614, creating a shortfall of ₹14. The High Court, upon review, recalled its earlier decision which allowed rectification of this shortfall, leading to the dismissal of the appellant’s suit. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, writing for the bench, referred to precedents including Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, which highlight the courts’ ability to correct minor mistakes to avoid injustice. The court noted, “An act of the court shall prejudice no man,” emphasizing that courts have the discretion under Section 148 of the CPC to extend the time for depositing the required amount if the mistake is bona fide and not indicative of negligence.

The court criticized the mechanical approach of lower courts in handling trivial deficiencies without considering the context or the triviality of the amount involved. It pointed out that the trial court and the High Court failed to appreciate the clerical nature of the error, which was compounded by the courts’ own oversight.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the lower court. The appellants were permitted to deposit the deficit amount of ₹14 and were also directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 to the respondents for the prolonged litigation.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024.

Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. Vs Sukhi Ram & Ors.

Similar News