JANG SINGH versus BRIJLAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 20-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-'I
-
1 ::s.C.R.
SUPREME CQURT REPORtS
JANG SINGH
'V.
BRIJLAL AND ORS.
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH an<l
J.C. SHAH JJ.)'
145
Pre-emption-Deposit of one ru1Jee le8s in Court under
order of court-Litigant not to suffer-Act of Court should harrn
no one.
The appellant filed a suit for pre-emption for the sale of
certain lands against the first respondent.
A compromise
decree was pas ied in favour of the appellant and he was directed
to deposit Rs. 5951/-, less Rs. 1000/- already deposited.
The
suit was to stand dismissed with costs if the deposit wa$ 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 dupli·
cate and handed it over to the appellant.
In the challan
Rs. 4950/· were mentioned instead of Rs. 4951/-.
The money
was deposited by the appellant.
Later on, it was pointed out
that the deposit was short by _Re. I.
The Subordinate Judge
accepted the objection and set aside the decree for pre-emption
passed in favour of the appellant. The order of the Subordi-
nate Judge was set aside by the Di>trictJudge. It was held that
the f'!ourt and its clerk made a mistake by ordering the appel-
lant to deposit an an1ount which was less by Re. I/- and hence
the appellant was excused in as much as the responsibility
was shared by the Court. The decision of the District Jud~e
was set aside by the High Court and the appellant came to tkis
Court by special leave.
Held, that the decision of the District Jud~e wa• correct
anol the appellant was ordered to deposit Re. I/· it the court ef
the Subordinatejudge. The appollant was an ilJiterate person
and the Court and its officers had largely contributed to• the
error committed by hirn. It is true that the Iitigcint· must be
vi15ilant and take rare, but where a litigant goes to the c;ourt
and asks for its assistance, so that this obligation under a •ecree
might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the
Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices t©
ensure that the correct information is furnished.
lf the
Court in snpplying the information makes a mistake, the res-
ponsibility of the litigant, thouf~h it does not altogether cease,
1963
. ,..,,
1963
l01t1 Sittgh
v.
JJrijlal
Hii4µtullala J.
··~;.;,.I(, ___ .,.., .............. ..,i ....... __ _.. ,.. ___ ,..,... .. , ;..: ............ ~ ··~-++
i46 SUPRENll COURT REPORTS [1964jVOt.
Is at lca.\it shared by the Court.
If the litigant acts 011 the
faith of that infonnation, the court cannot hold hhu resp<'U·
sible for a 1nistakc which it itself cat1sc 1.
Xo act of ('.ourt
siv')uJ<l hann a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Cuurts
to sec that if a person is harmed by a 1nistakc of Cnurt, -he
:should be restored to the position he would h;1vc uccupicU but
for that mist~ke.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jc;HJSDICTION : Civil Appeal
;'\o. 687 of I !J62.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
decree dated December I, I !JG I, of the Punjab High
Court at Chandigarh, in Execution Second Appeal
No. 586 of !9GO.
K. L. J!elitri., for the appellant.
K. L. Gosuin, K. 1\. Jain and /'. C.
/~lut.n11a,
for the respondents Nos. 2 to Ii.
Hlfi:I.
February 20.
The judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HwAYATULLAll J.-This appeal with the spe-
cial leave of this Court arises out of execution of a
decree for pre-emption passed in favour of ihe appe-
llant Jang Singh. By the order under appeal the
High Court has held that Jang Singh had not depo-
sited 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 ven-
dor), and Bhola Singh the second respondent (the
vendee) in the Court of Sub-Judge !st Class, Sirsa.
On October 25, 1957, a compromise decree was pass-
ed in favour of Jang Singh and he was directed to
•
..
+-
·"'-'*
2 s.c.R..
SUPREME COURT k.EPORTS
i47
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 (i,
1958, Jang S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.