Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. vs Sukhi Ram & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

3 May 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2011

Result

Allowed

Bench

Rajesh Bindal, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale

Citation

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 885 : 2024 INSC 374

Acts & Sections

CPC

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.

Headnote

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 preemption 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] 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]

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. 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 la

View Subscription Plans →