LexKANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SUKHI RAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* 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 fil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.