Case: Jang Singh Vs. Brijlal And Ors

payment of the decretal amount in pre-emption cases also held that the finding that the short could not be extended by the Court. He 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, Sisra.6. The facts of the case almost speak for themselves. A search was made for the application on which the order of the Court directing a deposit of Rs. 4,950 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 Courts 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 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 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 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.7. In the present case the court could have ordered 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 office reported that only Rs. 4,950 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 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.8. 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 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 tunc.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is, however, quite clear that the challan was prepared under the Courts 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.7. In the present case the court could have ordered 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 office reported that only Rs. 4,950 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 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.8. 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 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 tunc.