Summary
A pre-emption decree was not defeated by a bona fide Rs.14 calculation shortfall in a timely deposit approved by the court. The court could extend time under Section 148 CPC for such a small inadvertent deficiency; the decree had not quantified the net balance and the claimants had offered to make good any deficit. Deposit was permitted by 20 May 2024, but Rs.1 lakh costs were imposed for the claimants’ error causing decades of litigation.
Issues
- Whether time could be extended to cure a minor inadvertent shortfall under a pre-emption decree.
- Whether the court-approved deposit and early offer to cure justified relief despite the delay.
- What costs were appropriate for the avoidable litigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Following Johri Singh, the court may extend time after expiry for a small bona fide deposit shortfall; the relevant facts include mistake, court involvement and absence of deliberate noncompliance. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18)
Held
- The decree directed payment of a gross sum less the pre-emption amount already deposited, without specifying the net balance. The claimants obtained permission on their application and challan and deposited the stated amount within time, leaving only Rs.14 unpaid; the court did not notice the arithmetic error. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 16)
- Johri Singh establishes discretion to extend time for a relatively small, bona fide inadvertent shortfall even after the original deadline. Court involvement in approving a mistaken challan is material; such relief does not follow from every unexplained failure to comply with a pre-emption decree. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- At their first response to the deficiency application, the claimants offered to cure any shortfall, but the matter remained pending. The analogous authority and these circumstances justified setting aside the refusal of permission. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18)
- The appeal was allowed and the adverse High Court and lower-court orders set aside. The Rs.14 balance could be deposited by 20 May 2024; respondents could withdraw the entire court deposit. (¶ 18)
- Because the claimants’ error had forced the respondents into decades of avoidable litigation, Rs.1 lakh costs were ordered to be deposited in the trial court within the same deadline, withdrawable by the respondents. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; Rs.14 deficit deposit permitted by 20 May 2024. Claimants also directed to deposit Rs.1 lakh costs by that date, withdrawable by respondents.