# l01t1 Sittgh v. JJrijlal

- **Citation:** [1964] 2 S.C.R. 145
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/l01t1-sittgh-v-jjrijlal-2831
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

-'I
-
1 ::s.C.R.
SUPREME CQURT REPORtS
JANG SINGH
'V.
BRIJLAL AND ORS.
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH an<l
J.C. SHAH JJ.)'
145
Pre-emption-Deposit of one ru1Jee le8s in Court under
order of court-Litigant not to suffer-Act of Court should harrn
no one.
The appellant filed a suit for pre-emption for the sale of
certain lands against the first respondent.
A compromise
decree was pas ied in favour of the appellant and he was directed
to deposit Rs. 5951/-, less Rs. 1000/- already deposited.
The
suit was to stand dismissed with costs if the deposit wa$ not
made punctually. The appellant made an application to the
Subordinate Judge for making the deposit 'of the balance of the
amount.
The clerk of the Court prepared a challan in dupli·
cate and handed it over to the appellant.
In the challan
Rs. 4950/· were mentioned instead of Rs. 4951/-.
The money
was deposited by the appellant.
Later on, it was pointed out
that the deposit was short by _Re. I.
The Subordinate Judge
accepted the objection and set aside the decree for pre-emption
passed in favour of the appellant. The order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside by the Di>trictJudge. It was held that
the f'!ourt and its clerk made a mistake by ordering the appellant to deposit an an1ount which was less by Re. I/- and hence
the appellant was excused in as much as the responsibility
was shared by the Court. The decision of the District Jud~e
was set aside by the High Court and the appellant came to tkis
Court by special leave.
Held, that the decision of the District Jud~e wa• correct
anol the appellant was ordered to deposit Re. I/· it the court ef
the Subordinatejudge. The appollant was an ilJiterate person
and the Court and its officers had largely contributed to• the
error committed by hirn. It is true that the Iitigcint· must be
vi15ilant and take rare, but where a litigant goes to the c;ourt
and asks for its assistance, so that this obligation under a •ecree
might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the
Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices t©
ensure that the correct information is furnished.
lf the
Court in snpplying the information makes a mistake, the responsibility of the litigant, thouf~h it does not altogether cease,
1963
. ,..,,
1963
l01t1 Sittgh
v.
JJrijlal
Hii4μtullala J.
··~;.;,.I(, ___ .,.., .............. ..,i ....... __ _.. ,.. ___ ,..,... .. , ;..: ............ ~ ··~-++
i46 SUPRENll COURT REPORTS [1964jVOt.
Is at lca.\it shared by the Court.
If the litigant acts 011 the
faith of that infonnation, the court cannot hold hhu resp<'U·
sible for a 1nistakc which it itself cat1sc 1.
Xo act of ('.ourt
siv')uJ<l hann a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Cuurts
to sec that if a person is harmed by a 1nistakc of Cnurt, -he
:should be restored to the position he would h;1vc uccupicU but
for that mist~ke.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jc;HJSDICTION : Civil Appeal
;'\o. 687 of I !J62.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated December I, I !JG I, of the Punjab High
Court at Chandigarh, in Execution Second Appeal
No. 586 of !9GO.
K. L. J!elitri., for the appellant.
K. L. Gosuin, K. 1\. Jain and /'. C.
/~lut.n11a,
for the respondents Nos. 2 to Ii.
Hlfi:I.
February 20.
The judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HwAYATULLAll J.-This appeal with the special leave of this Court arises out of execution of a
decree for pre-emption passed in favour of ihe appellant Jang Singh. By the order under appeal the
High Court has held that Jang Singh had not deposited the full amount as directed by the decree within
the time allowed to him and his suit for pre-emption
must therefore be ordered to be dismissed and also
the other proceedings arising therefrom as there was
no decree of which he could ask execution.
The facts of the case are simple. Jang Singh
filed a suit for pre-emption of the sale of certain
lands against Brij Lal the first respondent (the vendor), and Bhola Singh the second respondent (the
vendee) in the Court of Sub-Judge !st Cl

## Text

-'I
-
1 ::s.C.R.
SUPREME CQURT REPORtS
JANG SINGH
'V.
BRIJLAL AND ORS.
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH an<l
J.C. SHAH JJ.)'
145
Pre-emption-Deposit of one ru1Jee le8s in Court under
order of court-Litigant not to suffer-Act of Court should harrn
no one.
The appellant filed a suit for pre-emption for the sale of
certain lands against the first respondent.
A compromise
decree was pas ied in favour of the appellant and he was directed
to deposit Rs. 5951/-, less Rs. 1000/- already deposited.
The
suit was to stand dismissed with costs if the deposit wa$ not
made punctually. The appellant made an application to the
Subordinate Judge for making the deposit 'of the balance of the
amount.
The clerk of the Court prepared a challan in dupli·
cate and handed it over to the appellant.
In the challan
Rs. 4950/· were mentioned instead of Rs. 4951/-.
The money
was deposited by the appellant.
Later on, it was pointed out
that the deposit was short by _Re. I.
The Subordinate Judge
accepted the objection and set aside the decree for pre-emption
passed in favour of the appellant. The order of the Subordinate Judge was set aside by the Di>trictJudge. It was held that
the f'!ourt and its clerk made a mistake by ordering the appellant to deposit an an1ount which was less by Re. I/- and hence
the appellant was excused in as much as the responsibility
was shared by the Court. The decision of the District Jud~e
was set aside by the High Court and the appellant came to tkis
Court by special leave.
Held, that the decision of the District Jud~e wa• correct
anol the appellant was ordered to deposit Re. I/· it the court ef
the Subordinatejudge. The appollant was an ilJiterate person
and the Court and its officers had largely contributed to• the
error committed by hirn. It is true that the Iitigcint· must be
vi15ilant and take rare, but where a litigant goes to the c;ourt
and asks for its assistance, so that this obligation under a •ecree
might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the
Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices t©
ensure that the correct information is furnished.
lf the
Court in snpplying the information makes a mistake, the responsibility of the litigant, thouf~h it does not altogether cease,
1963
. ,..,,
1963
l01t1 Sittgh
v.
JJrijlal
Hii4μtullala J.
··~;.;,.I(, ___ .,.., .............. ..,i ....... __ _.. ,.. ___ ,..,... .. , ;..: ............ ~ ··~-++
i46 SUPRENll COURT REPORTS [1964jVOt.
Is at lca.\it shared by the Court.
If the litigant acts 011 the
faith of that infonnation, the court cannot hold hhu resp<'U·
sible for a 1nistakc which it itself cat1sc 1.
Xo act of ('.ourt
siv')uJ<l hann a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Cuurts
to sec that if a person is harmed by a 1nistakc of Cnurt, -he
:should be restored to the position he would h;1vc uccupicU but
for that mist~ke.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jc;HJSDICTION : Civil Appeal
;'\o. 687 of I !J62.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated December I, I !JG I, of the Punjab High
Court at Chandigarh, in Execution Second Appeal
No. 586 of !9GO.
K. L. J!elitri., for the appellant.
K. L. Gosuin, K. 1\. Jain and /'. C.
/~lut.n11a,
for the respondents Nos. 2 to Ii.
Hlfi:I.
February 20.
The judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HwAYATULLAll J.-This appeal with the special leave of this Court arises out of execution of a
decree for pre-emption passed in favour of ihe appellant Jang Singh. By the order under appeal the
High Court has held that Jang Singh had not deposited the full amount as directed by the decree within
the time allowed to him and his suit for pre-emption
must therefore be ordered to be dismissed and also
the other proceedings arising therefrom as there was
no decree of which he could ask execution.
The facts of the case are simple. Jang Singh
filed a suit for pre-emption of the sale of certain
lands against Brij Lal the first respondent (the vendor), and Bhola Singh the second respondent (the
vendee) in the Court of Sub-Judge !st Class, Sirsa.
On October 25, 1957, a compromise decree was passed in favour of Jang Singh and he was directed to
•
..
+-
·"'-'*
2 s.c.R..
SUPREME COURT k.EPORTS
i47
deposit Rs. 5951 less Rs. 1000 already deposited by
him by May 1, 1958. The decree also ordered that
on his failing to make the deposit punctually his
suit would stand dismissed with costs. On January (i,
1958, Jang Singh made an application to the Sub
Judge, Sirsa, for making the deposit of the balance
of the amount of the decree. The Clerk of the Court,
which was also the executing Court, prepared a
challan in duplicate and handed it over with the
application to Jang Singh so that the amount might
be deposited in the Bank. In the challan (and in the
order passed on the application, so it is aHeged)
Rs. 4950 were mentioned instead of Rs. 4951. Jang
Singh took the challan and the application and made
the deposit of the wrong balance the same day and
received one copy of the challan as an acknowledge-,
ment from the Bank.
In
May, 1958,
he
applied
for
and
received an order for possession of the land.
It was
reported by the Naib Nazir that the entire amount
was deposited in Court. Bhola Singh then applied
on May 25, 1958, to the Court for payment to him of
the amount lying in deposit and it was reported
by the Naib Nazir on that application that Jang
Singh had not deposited the correct amount and the
deposit was short by one rupee. Bhola Singh applied
to the Court for dismissal of Jang Singh's suit,
and for recall of all the orders made in Jang Singh's
favour.
The Sub Judge, Sirsa, accepted Bhola
Singh's application observing that in pre-emption
cases a Court had no power to extend the time fixed
by the decree for payment of the price and the preemptor by his failure to deposit the correct amount
had incurred the dismissal of the suit under the decree.
He ordered also the reversal of the earlioc orders
passed by him in favour of Jan~ Singh and direc'
ted that possession of the fields be restored to the
opposite party.
Jang Singh appealed agail'lst that order. The
1963
iang Singh
v.
HriJlal
llido_yalultah J.
-
196;!
J•'lft Sinth
v.
Rrijlli
Hiioy.cJolfalr J,
.
'" ....
. .......
....·--·
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!Ui-l] VOL
District Judge recorded the evidence oft he Execution
Clerk, the Revenue Accountant, Trrasurv OHice and
Jang Singh.
He also examin<·d Bhola Siugh.
The
learned District Judge held that the record of the
case showed that 011 the day the rasc was compromised and the decree w JS passed Jang Singh was not
present and did not know the exact decrctal amount.
The learned District Judge assumed Lhat it was the
duty of Jang Singh lo be puuctual and to find out
the exact amount before he made the deposit.
He,
however, held that as .Jang Singh had }pp roached
the Court with an application intending to make the
deposit to be ordered by the Court, and the Court
and its clerk made a mistake by ordering him to
deposit an amount which was less by one rupee, Jang
Singh was excused in as much as the respousibility
was shared by the Court.
The learned District
.Judge, therefore, ·held that this was a case in which
Jang Singh deserved to be relieved and he came to
the conclusion that Jang Singh was
prevented from
depositing the full amount by the act of the Court.
He concluded "thus tl1e deposit made w?s a sufficient compliance with the terms of the decree". The
order of the Sub Judge, Sirsa dismissing the suit was
set aside.
Bhola Singh appealed to the High Court. This
appeal was heard by a learned single.Judge who was
of the opinion that the decree which was passed was
not complied with and that under the law the time
fixed under the decree for the payment or the decretal amount in pre-emption cases could not be extended by the Court. He also held that the finding that
the short deposit was due to an act of the Court was
unsupported by evidence.
He accordingly set a.side
the decision of the leanird District .Judge and restored
that of the Sub-Judge, Sirsa.
The facts of the case almost speak for themselves.
A search was made for the application on
-
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
149
which the order of the Court directing a deposit of
Rs. 4950 was said to be passed.
That application
remained untraced though the District Judge adjourned the case more than once. It is, however,
quite clear that the challan was prepared under the
Court's direction and the duplicate challan prepared
by the Court as well as the one presented to the Bank
have been produced in this case and they show the
lesser amount.
This challan is admittedly prepared
by the Execution Clerk and it is also an admitted
fact that Jang Singh is an illiterate person.
The
Execution Clerk has deposed to the procedure which
is usually followed and he has pointed
out that
first there is a report by the Ahlmed about the
amount in deposit and then an order is made by the
Court on the application before the challan is pre·
pared. It is, therefore, quite clear that if there was
an error the Court and its officers largely contributed
to it. It is no doubt true that a litigant must be
vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to
Court and asks for the assistance of.the Court so that
his obligations under a decree might be fulfilled by
him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does
not leave
the litigant
to
his
own
devices,
to ensure that the correct information is furnished.
If the Court in supplying the information makes a
mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it
does not altogether ce11se, is at least shared by the
Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts cannot hold him responsible
for a mistake which it itself caused.
There is no
higher principle for the guidance of the Court than
the one that no
act of Courts should harm a
litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see
that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the
Court he should be restored to the position he wou Id
have occupied but for that mistake'.
This is aptly
summed up in the maxim :
"A ctn.< curiae nemincm gravabit".
In the present case the Court coulcl have orclerecl
1Yf3
/lttl: Sl;t:h
v.
Bt:{jlal
Hidayatullah J;
1963
Jan.~ Si111h
v.
8n1[1l
....
':-
lM~·~----' . .
-· ...... , .. : _,._ •.. -·
~ ........ --·
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
Jang Singh to make the deposit after obtaining
a certified copy of the decree thus leaving it to him
to find out the correct amount and make the correct
deposit.
The Court did not do this.
The Court, on
the other hand, made an order and through its clerk
prepared a ehallan showing the amount which was
required to be deposited. Jang Singh carried out
the direction in the order and also implicit in the
challan, to the letter.
There was thus an error
committed bv the Court which the Court must undo
and which c~nnot be undone by shifting the blame
on Jang Singh.
To dismiss his suit because Jang
Singh was also partly negligent docs not
exonerat~
the Court from its responsibility for the mistake.
Jang Singh was expected
to rely upon the Court ·
and its officers and 10 act according lo their
dir~c
tions.
That he did so promptly and fully is quite
clear.
There remaius, thus, the wrong brlief inducrd in his mind by the action of the Court that all he
ha<l to pay was ,rated trnly in the challan and for
this rrror the Court must take full responsibility and it
is this error which the Court must set right before the
suit of.fang Singh can be ordered to be dismissed. The
learned single Judge of the High Court co11sidercd
the case as if it was one of extension of tiu1c.
He
rcvcrs~d the finding give11 by the District Judge that
the application made by Jang Singh did not mention
any amount and the oflice reported that
only
Rs. 4!l50 were due. The learned single .Judge exceed·
cd his jurisdiction
then~. It is quite clear that once
the finding of the District .Judge is accepted-and it
proceeds on evidence. given by Jang Singh and the
Execution Clerk-the only conclusion that can be
reached is that Jang Singh relied
upon what the
Court ordered and the error, if any, wa~ substantially
the making of the Court.
In these circumstances,
following the well-accepted principle that th~ act of
Court should harm no one,
the District .J11d~e was
right in reversing the decision of the Subjudg-e,
Sirsa.
The District Judge was, however, in error in
.......
-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
101
holding that the decree was "sufficiently complied
with". That decree could only be fully ,complied
with by making the deposit of Re. 1 which the
District Judge ought to have ordered.
In our opinion the decision of the learned
single Judge of the High Court must be set aside.
The mistake committed by the Court must be set
right. The case must go back to that ~tage when
the mistake was committed by the Court and the
appellant should be ordered to deposit the additional
rupee for payment to Bhola Singh. If he fails
to make the deposit within the time specified by
us his suit may be dismissed but not before. We
may point out however that we are not deciding the
question whether a Court after passing a decree for
pre-emption can extend the time originally fixed for
deposit of the decretal amount. That question does
not arise here.
In view of the mistake of the Court
which needs to be righted the parties are relegated
to the position they occupied on January 6, 1958,
when the error was committed by the Court which
error is being rectified by us nunc pro t-1;,nc.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
The appellant is ordered to deposit Re. 1 within one month
from the date of the receipt of the record in the
Court of the Sub-Judge, Sirsa.
In view of the
special circumstances of this case there shall be no
order about costs throughout.
Appeal allou:ed.
/§63
~-
Jang Singh .
v.
Br~jlal
Hi~yaruU11k J.