KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SUKHI RAM & ORS.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 885, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 885 : 2024 INSC 374
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. 
v. 
Sukhi Ram & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2011)
03 May 2024
[Rajesh Bindal* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in not exercising the discretion to 
extend the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 in a pre-emption suit.
Headnotes†
Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Extension 
of time for deposit in pre-emption suit – The court can allow 
such an extension when there is a bona fide mistake and the 
deficiency is minor – law laid down in Johri Singh v. Sukh 
Pal Singh and Others, [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 – Followed – 
Non-deposit of a relatively small fraction of money due to 
inadvertent mistake – Court can exercise discretion under 
Section 148 CPC to extend the time even after the time fixed 
has expired.
Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts have the 
jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of money in a pre-
emption suit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908. Such an extension can be allowed when there is a bona 
fide mistake and the deficiency is minor. The Supreme Court 
held that the facts were similar to Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal 
Singh and Others [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 case wherein it 
was held that non-deposit of a relatively small fraction of the 
purchase money due to inadvertent mistake, allows the court 
discretion under Section 148 CPC to extend
the time even after 
the time fixed has expired, provided the mistake is bona fide 
and not indicative of negligence or inaction. Accordingly, the 
Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, 
allowing the appellants to deposit the balance amount of ₹14/- 
by 20.05.2024. [Paras 15-18]
886
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Costs for prolonged litigation – Appellants to pay costs to the 
respondents – Respondents were compelled to litigate for an 
extended period due to the appellants’ minor error.
Held: The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay costs of ₹ 
1,00,000/- to the respondents, recognizing that the respondents were 
compelled to litigate for an extended period due to the appellants’ 
minor error. This amount was to be deposited in the Trial Court 
within the stipulated time for the respondents to withdraw. [Para 19]
Case Law Cited
Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17; 
Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and Others [1964] 2 SCR 145 – followed.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Extension of time; Pre-emption suit; Deposit; Bonafide; Section 
148 CPC.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2009 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RA No.2-C11 of 2009 in CR 
No. 1645 of 1992
Appearances for Parties
J. B. Mudgal, Ms. Vanshika Mudgil, R. C. Kaushik, Advs. for the Appellants.
S.P. Laller, Anil Hooda, Priyank, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. 
for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
The case in hand is an example of a party suffering on account of 
total casualness in dealing with the matter. An avoidable litigation.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
887
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. v. Sukhi Ram &Ors.
2.	
The challenge is to the order1 passed by the High Court2 in Review 
Application3. By the said order the Review Application filed by the 
respondents was allowed. As a result, the earlier order4 passed 
by the High Court in revision5 was recalled. By the said order, the 
revision filed by the present appellants was allowed, permitting them 
to make good the deficit of ₹14/-.
3.	
The facts as available on record are that part of land comprising 
of 1/4th share land in Khewat No.236 and Khatoni No.258 situated 
in Village Samchana, District Rohtak, Haryana, was sold by Jai 
Singh, Jai Kishan, Randhir, Shamsher Singh sons of Balbir Singh 
son of Dariyav Singh to Sukhi Ram, Ram Pal, Hari Om, Mahabir 
Singh (respondents-defendants). The predecessor in-interest of the 
appellants filed a suit for pre-emption. The same was decreed by 
the Trial Court on 11.08.1988. The predecessor in-interest of the 
appellants/plaintiffs was required to deposit a sum of ₹ 9,214/- minus 
1/5th of the pre-emption amount already deposited, on or before 
10.10.1988, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. 
3.1	 Predecessor in-interest of the appellants filed an application on 
19.09.1988 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 deposit 
of ₹ 7,600/-. It was claimed that the application
and the challans 
were handed over in original to the appellant(s). The amount 
was deposited on the same day i.e. 19.09.1988. 
3.2	 On 06.12.1988, an application was moved by the judgment-
debtor (defendant-respondent) seeking permission to withdraw 
the amount deposited by the appellant-plaintiff on which a report 
was submitted by the office on the same day. It was found that 
the amount deposited by the appellant-plaintiff was less by ₹ 14/-.
3.3	 On 23.02.1989 the judgment-debtor (defendant-respondent) 
filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on account 
of non-compliance of the direction given in the judgment and 
1	
Dated 26.10.2009
2	
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
3	
R.A. No.2-C-II of 2009
4	
Dated 04.12.2008
5	
Civil Revision No.1645 of 1992
888
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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. While the aforesaid application was 
pending, the appellant-plaintiff filed an application on 05.03.1991 
seeking permission of the court to deposit deficit amount of 
₹ 14/-. Subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid application, an 
application dated 25.05.1991 was also filed by the appellant-
plaintiff seeking condonation of delay in filing the application 
seeking permission to make good the deficiency in deposit of 
the amount as per the decree of the Trial Court.
3.4	 Vide order dated 09.01.1992, the application filed by the 
appellant seeking permission to deposit ₹ 14/- was dismissed 
by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants 
preferred Revision Petition before the High Court which was 
initially allowed on 04.12.2008. However, on a Review Application 
filed by the respondents, the order passed by the High Court on 
04.12.2008, was recalled and Civil Revision No.1645 of 1992 
was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2009. It is the aforesaid 
order which is under challenge in the present appeal. 
4.	
Impugning the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellants 
submitted that the appellants are illiterate. In the case in hand, 
decree was passed in favour of the predecessor in-interest of the 
appellants on 11.08.1988 and the time was
granted for deposit of the 
balance amount upto 10.10.1998 after reducing 1/5th of the amount 
already deposited in court. Accordingly, an application was moved 
seeking permission of the court to deposit the balance amount. On 
that application, order was passed by the court directing deposit 
of ₹ 7,600/- and the Treasury Challan was also annexed with the 
application. Immediately, the amount was deposited. It was found 
that there was an error in the calculation of the amount. As a result 
of which the deposit was short by ₹ 14/-. 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 ₹ 7,600/- instead of 
₹ 7,614/-. 
4.1	 An application was filed by the judgment-debtor (respondent-
defendant) for dismissal of the suit on account of the non-deposit 
of the amount as per the decree within the time granted by 
the court.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
889
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. v. Sukhi Ram &Ors.
4.2	 The Trial Court, without appreciating the facts and circumstances 
of the case wrongly rejected the application moved by the 
appellant-plaintiff seeking permission of the Court to deposit the 
deficit amount of ₹ 14/-. The aforesaid order was challenged 
before the High Court. Initially, the Revision Petition was 
allowed vide order dated 04.12.2008. However, in the Review 
Application filed by the respondent, the order passed in the 
Revision Petition was recalled and the same was dismissed 
vide order dated 26.10.2009. 
4.3	 The Trial Court as well as the High Court have failed to 
appreciate the issue that the court is 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 meagre. In support 
of the arguments, reliance was placed on the judgments of 
this Court in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others6 
and Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and Others7.
5.	
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted 
that the appellants having failed to comply with the terms of the 
decree passed in their favour, do not deserve any relief from 
this Court. The appellant-plaintiff had purchased the property by 
paying the full market price. A suit for pre-emption was filed by 
the appellant-plaintiff
which was decreed. The decreetal amount 
was to be deposited by 10.10.1988. The appellant-plaintiff moved 
an application before the Trial Court along with pre-filled Treasury 
Challan seeking permission to deposit ₹ 7,600/-. It was on that 
application moved by the appellant-plaintiff, the court ordered for 
depositing of ₹ 7,600/-, which was deposited by the appellant-plaintiff. 
The amount as such was not calculated by the court as it was the 
duty of the appellant-plaintiff to deposit the correct amount in terms 
of the decree, which was explicit. 
5.1	 On an application moved by the respondent-defendant for 
withdrawal of the amount of ₹ 9,214/- in terms of the decree, 
the office reported on 06.12.1988 that the amount deposited 
6	
[1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 : (1989) 4 SCC 403 : 1989 INSC 265
7	
[1964] 2 SCR 145 : AIR 1966 SC 1631: 1963 INSC 42
890
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was merely ₹ 9,200/-. Immediately, thereafter an application was 
filed on 23.02.1989 by the respondent-defendant for dismissal of 
the suit on account of the non-compliance of the terms of the 
decree by the appellant-plaintiff. More than two years thereafter, 
the appellant-plaintiff moved an application seeking permission 
to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 14/- without explaining any 
reason for moving such an application at a belated stage. More 
than two months thereafter, an application was filed seeking 
condonation of delay in deposit of the amount. Even that also 
did not contain any reason. 
5.2	 Vide order dated 09.01.1992, the Trial Court dismissed the 
application filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking leave to 
deposit ₹ 14/- on account of non-deposit of the whole amount 
within the time permitted. The order passed by the Trial Court 
was challenged by the appellants before the High Court. Initially, 
on a wrong premise the High Court allowed the revision petition 
and set aside the order of the Trial Court. However, there 
being error apparent on the record, the Review Application 
filed by the respondents was allowed and after recalling the 
earlier order passed in the Revision Petition, the High Court 
dismissed the same. 
5.3	 There is no error in the order passed by the High Court. Even 
if the time granted by the court for deposit of the amount can 
be extended but there has to be sufficient reason for
the same. 
In the case in hand, there is no reason, what to talk about 
sufficient reason. There was no fault of the Trial Court as the 
order for deposit was passed on the same line as was prayed 
for by the appellants. 
6.	
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
paper book.
7.	
The respondents purchased the property in dispute from Jai Singh, 
Jai Kishan, Randhir and Shamsher Singh sons of Balbir Singh son 
of Dariyav Singh vide registered sale deed dated 06.08.1985. The 
appellants filed a suit for possession by way of preemption claiming 
that they being the co-sharers in the Joint Khewat had preferential 
right to purchase the property. The suit was filed on 11.08.1986. The 
suit was decreed on 11.08.1988. The appellants were directed to
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
891
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. v. Sukhi Ram &Ors.
deposit a sum of ₹ 9,214/- minus 1/5th preemption amount already 
deposited, on or before 10.10.1988 failing which the suit was to be 
dismissed with costs.
8.	
The appellants moved an application dated 19.09.1988 before the 
court seeking permission to deposit the sum due as per the direction 
of the court. It was specifically mentioned in the application that as 
per the decree the appellants were required to deposit a sum of 
₹ 9,214/- less 1/5th already deposited along with the application. 
Treasury Challan was also annexed mentioning the amount to be 
deposited by the appellants, i.e. ₹ 7,600/-. The court vide endorsement 
in the application itself on 19.09.1988 permitted the appellants to 
deposit ₹ 7,600/-. The amount was deposited by the appellants in 
the bank on the same day.
9.	
The respondents moved an application seeking permission to 
withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants in terms of the 
decree. The report dt. 06.12.1988 was submitted by the registry, 
that initially a sum of ₹ 1,600/- was deposited by the appellants on 
09.09.1986 and subsequently after passing of a decree a sum of 
₹ 7,600/- was deposited on 19.09.1988. Immediately thereafter the 
respondents moved an application dated 23.02.1989 before the court 
for passing further order and for dismissal of the suit as the appellants 
had failed to comply with the terms of the decree. The same was 
directed to be put
up on 20.03.1989, 07.04.1989, 19.04.1989 and 
thereafter on 26.04.1989 for consideration. From the record, nothing 
is available as to what happened to this aforesaid application after 
the aforesaid date. Nothing is clearly evident regarding that from 
the records.
10.	 Thereafter, at page 75 of the original record, there is another 
application filed by the respondents with similar prayer. It was 
directed by the court vide order dated 23.04.1990 to be put up on 
25.04.1990, then on 30.04.1990. On that date, notice was directed 
to be issued to the other side for 12.05.1990. On the next date, the 
learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/appellants sought 
time to file reply to the application. After seeking adjournment, reply 
was filed on 02.06.1990 taking the stand that the remaining amount 
was deposited after obtaining prior permission of the court and 
whatever direction was issued by the court the same was complied
892
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
with. It was stated that whatever amount was payable was deposited, 
however, if there is any deficiency the appellants are ready to make 
the same good.
11.	 After filing of reply by the appellants the matter remained under 
consideration before the court.
12.	 On 05.03.1991, the appellants filed an application before the court 
seeking permission to deposit the balance sum of ₹ 14/- in which 
notice was issued to the other side for 23.03.1991. While the 
aforesaid application was pending, another application was filed 
by the appellants on 25.05.1991 seeking condonation of delay in 
depositing of ₹ 14/-. It was pleaded in the application that ₹ 14/- 
remained unpaid due to clerical mistake. The mistake was not 
intentional. Hence, delay be condoned.
13.	 Finally, the application was taken up for consideration by the court 
and vide order dated 09.01.1992 the same was rejected.
14.	 Against the aforesaid order, the appellants preferred Revision Petition 
before the High Court, which was initially allowed vide order dated 
04.12.2008. The High Court noticed the argument raised by learned 
counsel for the respondents therein namely the respondents herein 
that in preemption matter the court cannot extend the time for deposit 
of money. However, the Court went on to invoke its inherent jurisdiction 
for correction of error of the court. The revision was allowed. The 
appellants were granted time to deposit the balance sum of ₹
14/-. 
The respondents filed the Review Application against the order of 
the High Court. The same was allowed and vide impugned order 
dated 26.10.2009, the earlier order passed by the High Court on 
04.12.2008 was recalled and the revision was dismissed.
15.	  As far as the position of law and the question whether the court 
can extend the time for deposit of money in a pre-emption suit is 
concerned, this court in Johri Singh’s case (supra) considered a 
similar issue. In that case, the deposit was less by ₹ 100/-. The 
application filed by the decree holder therein seeking permission to 
deposit to make the deficiency good, after expiry of the time granted 
by the court, was allowed. The order was upheld by this court. In para 
21, this court opined that the Trial Court in the decree only mentioned 
a sum to be deposited by the decree holder minus the amount of 
“zare-panjum”. The amount was not specified in the judgment. Error
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
893
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. v. Sukhi Ram &Ors.
in calculation occurred, as a result of which ₹ 100/- was deposited 
less. The application filed by the decree holder therein with challan 
annexed was allowed by the court without pointing out the error. After 
deposit of the amount though little deficient, even the possession of 
the property was delivered to the decree-holder. Relevant paras 20, 
21, 25 and 26 are extracted below:
“20. In the third category of cases, namely, non-deposit 
of only a relatively small fraction of the purchase money 
due to inadvertent mistake whether or not caused by any 
action of the court, the court has the discretion under 
Section 148 CPC to extend the time even though the time 
fixed has already expired provided it is satisfied that the 
mistake is bona fide and was not indicative of negligence 
or inaction as was the case in Jogdhayan [(1983) 1 SCC 
26 : (1983) 1 SCR 844] . The court will extend the time 
when it finds that the mistake was the result of, or induced 
by, an action of the court applying the maxim “actus curiae 
neminem gravabit” — an act of the court shall prejudice 
no man, as was the case in Jang Singh [AIR 1966 SC 
1631 : (1964) 2 SCR 145] . While it would be necessary 
to consider the facts of the case to determine whether the 
inadvertent mistake was due to any action of the court it 
would be appropriate to find that the ultimate permission 
to deposit the challaned amount is that of the
court.
21. Proceeding as above, in the instant case we find that 
the decree did not quantify the purchase money having 
only said “Rs 41,082 less the amount of ‘zare panjum’ ”. 
Of course, ‘certum est quod certum reddi potest’— that 
is certain which can be rendered certain. The amount of 
‘zare-panjum’ was not specified. Parties do not controvert 
that it was one fifth. But the amount was not calculated 
by the court itself. Inadvertent error crept in arithmetical 
calculation. The deficit of Rs 100 was a very small fraction 
of the total payable amount of Rs 33,682 which was 
paid very much within the fixed time, and there was no 
reason, except for the mistake, as to why he would not 
have paid this Rs 100 also within time. The appellants’ 
application with the challan annexed was allowed by court 
officials without pointing out the mistake. The amount
894
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was deposited and even possession of the property was 
delivered to the appellant. The Senior Subordinate Judge 
allowed the application made by appellant in exercise of 
the discretion vested in him apparently on the view that 
sufficient cause had been out for non-deposit of Rs 100. 
This order, however, as seen above, was set aside by 
the High Court in a civil revision under Section 115 CPC.
xx   xx   xx
25. In this view of the matter there seems to be no manner 
of doubt that the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction 
to extend the time under Section 148 CPC on sufficient 
cause being made out. The first condition precedent to 
enable the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction 
under Section 115 CPC was, therefore, lacking. Likewise, 
nothing has been brought to our notice on the basis of 
which it could be said that the discretion exercised by the 
Senior Subordinate Judge was in breach of any provision 
of law or that he committed any error of procedure which 
was material and may have affected the ultimate decision. 
That being so, the High Court had no power to interfere 
with the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, however 
profoundly it may have differed from the conclusions of 
that Judge on questions of fact or law.
26. On the facts and circumstances of the case we feel 
justified in allowing this appeal, setting aside the impugned 
judgment of the High Court, and in restoring that of the
Senior Subordinate Judge allowing 10 days’ time to deposit 
the balance of Rs 100 exercising power under Section 148 
CPC on facts of the case. If the amount has not already 
been deposited, it shall be deposited within 30 days 
from today and the respondents shall withdraw the same 
according to law. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but 
under the facts and circumstances of the case, without 
any order as to costs.”
16.	 The facts of the case in hand are identical. In the instant case as 
well the balance amount to be deposited by the appellant was not 
specified in the decree. The deficiency was only ₹ 14/-. The appellants 
had already deposited ₹ 9,200/- including the preemption amount
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
895
Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. v. Sukhi Ram &Ors.
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.
17.	 It is the pleaded case of the appellants in the application filed for 
permission to deposit the deficit balance of ₹ 14/- dated 05.03.1991, 
that the applicant (late Kanihya, predecessor in-interest of the 
appellants) is in possession of the property and mutation has already 
been entered in his name in the revenue record.
18.	 In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal deserves 
to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The impugned order passed by 
the High Court and the court below are set aside. The appellants are 
permitted to deposit a sum of ₹ 14/- to the court below on or before 
20.05.2024. The respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the entire 
amount deposited in court, if not already done.
19.	 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 ₹ 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. 
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor 
(Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)