Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards

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