Appeal No 687 of 1962
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 1 1961 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Execution Second Appeal No 586 of 1960
K L Mehta for the appellant
K L Gosain K K Jain and P C Khanna for the respondents Nos 2 to 6 1963
February 20
The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J
This appeal with the special leave of this Court arises out of execution of a decree for pre emption passed in favour of the 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 1st Class Sirsa
On October 25 1957 a compromise decree was passed in favour of jang Singh and he was directed to 147 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 6 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 alleged 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 acknowledgement 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 sapplication 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 earlier orders passed by him in favour of Jang Singh and directed that possession of the fields be restored to the opposite party
jang Singh appealed against that order
The 148 District judge recorded the evidence of the Execution Clerk the Revenue Accountant Treasury ice and jang Singh
He also examined Bhola Singh
the learned District judge held that the record of the case showed that on the day the case was compromised and the decree was passed Jang Singh was not present and did not know the exact decretal amount
The learned District judge assumed that it was the duty of jang Singh to be punctual and to find out the exact amount before he made the deposit
He however held that as jang Singh had approached 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 responsibility 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 the deposit made was 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 singlejudge 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 of 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 aside the decision of the learned 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 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 Ahmed about the amount in deposit and then an order is made by the Court on the application before the challan is prepared
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 obligation  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 cease 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 would have occupied but for that mistake
This is aptly summed up in the maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit
In the present case the Court could have ordered 150 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 challan 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 by the Court which the Court must undo and which cannot be undone by shifting the blame on jang Singh
To dismiss his suit because Jang Singh was also partly negligent does not exonerate the Court from its responsibility for the mistake
Jang Singh was expected to rely upon the Court and its officers and to act according to their directions
That he did so promptly and fully is quite clear
There remains thus the wrong belief induced in his mind by the action of the Court that all he had to pay was stated truly in the challan and for this error the Court must take full responsibility and it is this error which the Court must set right before the suit of jang Singh can be ordered to be dismissed
The learned single judge of the High Court considered the case as if it was one of extension of time
He reversed the finding given by the District Judge that the application made by Jang Singh did not mention any amount and the ice reported that only Rs 
4950 were due
The learned single judge exceeded his jurisdiction there
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 was substantially the making of the Court
In these circumstances following the well accepted principle that the act of Court should harm no one the District Judge was right in reversing the decision of the Sub
Judge Sirsa
The District judge was however in error in 151 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 stage 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 re 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 tune
The appeal is therefore allowed
The appellant is ordered to deposit Re1 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 allowed


Summary:
The appellant filed a suit for pre emption for the sale of certain lands against the first respondent
A compromise decree was passed in favour of the appellant and lie was directed to deposit Rs 5951 less Rs 1000 already deposited
The suit was to stand dismissed with costs if the deposit was 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 duplicate and handed it over to the appellant
In the challan Rs 4950 were mentioned instead of Rs 4951The money was deposited by the appellant
Later on it was pointed out that the deposit was short by Re 1
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 District judge
It was held that the Court and its clerk made a mistake by ordering the appellant to deposit an amount which was less by Re 1 and hence the appellant was excused in as much as the responsibility was shared by the Court
The decision of the District judge was set aside by the High Court and the appellant came to this Court by special leave
Held that the decision of the District judge was correct and the appellant was ordered to deposit Re 1 in the court of the Subordinate Judge
The appellant was an illiterate person and the Court and its officers had largely contributed to the error committed by him
It is true that the litigant must be vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to the court and asks for its assistance so that this obligation 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 cease 146 Is at least shared by the Court
If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the court cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself causes
No act of Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of Court he should be restored to the position lie would have occupied but for that mistake