Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently imposed Rs one lakh cost on appellants in a matter on account of error in their part in depositing less than Rs 14 in a suit for preemption of a property in Haryana's district Rohtak as the opposite party was made to litigate for decades upto to the top court.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale allowed the appellants to deposit Rs 14 on and before May 20, 2024.

In the case, the bench noted that the appellants contended the trial court as well as the high court had failed to appreciate the issue that the court was empowered to extend the time for deposit of the amount in case there was any error. In the case in hand, there was a bona fide error. The parties should not be made to suffer on account of any error in the judicial proceedings. The amount was too meager.

The court was dealing with a challenge to the order passed by the high court in review application. By the said order, the review application filed by the respondents was allowed. As a result, the earlier order passed by the high court in revision was recalled. By the said order, the revision filed by the present appellants was allowed, permitting them to make good the deficit of Rs 14.

The predecessor in-interest of the appellants filed a suit for pre-emption, which was decreed by the trial court on August 11, 1988. The predecessor in-interest of the appellants/plaintiffs was required to deposit a sum of Rs 9,214 minus 1/5th of the pre-emption amount already deposited, on or before August 10, 1988, failing which the suit was to stand dismissed. 

Predecessor in-interest of the appellants filed an application on September 19, 1988 along with treasury challan in triplicate, seeking permission to deposit the amount as directed by the Trial Court. On the application, the trial court passed the order for a deposit of Rs 7,600. It was claimed that the application and the challans were handed over in original to the appellants. The amount was deposited on the same day.

On February 23, 1989, the judgment-debtor filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on account of non-compliance of the direction given in the judgment and decree of the trial court, as there was failure on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff to deposit full amount within the time granted by the trial court.

The appellants contended that they were illiterate and it was not intentional but due to a calculation error. Appellants cannot be said to be at default as even the court also directed for deposit of Rs 7,600 instead of Rs 7,614, their counsel alleged.

The court noted that in the instant case, the balance amount to be deposited by the appellant was not specified in the decree. The deficiency was only Rs 14. The appellants had already deposited Rs 9,200 including the preemption amount already deposited. 

When the application was filed seeking permission to deposit the amount along with the treasury challan, the error was not noticed by the court. At the very first stage, in response to the application filed by the respondents to pass appropriate order on account of deficiency by the appellants to deposit the amount as directed by the court, the appellants stated that in case there is any deficiency, they are ready to make it good. The court could have considered the same and passed appropriate orders. However, the matter remained pending for this, the bench said.

The applicant (late Kanihya, predecessor in-interest of the appellants) was in possession of the property and mutation has already been entered in his name in the revenue record, the court noted.

The court set aside the orders by the high court and the trial court.

"Though, we are allowing the appeal but on account of error on part of the appellants, the respondents were made to litigate for decades together upto this Court. We deem it appropriate to compensate them. Hence, we direct the appellants to pay a cost of Rs 1,00,000 to the respondents. The amount shall be deposited in the Trial Court within the time granted above, with liberty to the respondents to withdraw the same," the bench ordered.