A) Abstract / Headnote

This case examines the discretionary power of courts under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to extend time for depositing money in a pre-emption suit when the delay or deficiency is minor and bona fide. The Supreme Court highlighted principles of equity and judicial discretion, emphasizing that litigants should not suffer due to minor, inadvertent errors if the deficiency is non-negligent. Citing precedent, the Court affirmed the extension of time for depositing the deficient amount of ₹14 and allowed the appeal. However, the appellants were ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs due to prolonged litigation caused by their error.

Keywords: Pre-emption Suit, Section 148 CPC, Judicial Discretion, Bona Fide Mistake, Extension of Time.

B) Case Details

• i. Judgement Cause Title: Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRS. v. Sukhi Ram & Ors.
• ii. Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3990 of 2011.
• iii. Judgement Date: May 3, 2024.
• iv. Court: Supreme Court of India.
• v. Quorum: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale.
• vi. Author: Justice Rajesh Bindal.
• vii. Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 885; 2024 INSC 374.
• viii. Legal Provisions Involved: Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• ix. Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None.
• x. Case is Related to: Civil Procedure, Property Law (Pre-emption).

C) Introduction and Background of Judgement

The appellants filed a pre-emption suit for possession of land based on co-sharership, asserting a preferential right to purchase the property. The trial court decreed the suit and directed the appellants to deposit ₹9,214 within a stipulated time. However, due to a calculation error, the appellants deposited ₹14 less than the required amount. The deficiency was challenged by the respondents, leading to dismissal of the suit by the trial court. The High Court initially allowed a revision petition but reversed its stance upon review. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court for relief.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Transaction of Property: The respondents purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed dated August 6, 1985. The appellants, as co-sharers, filed a pre-emption suit claiming preferential purchase rights.
2. Decree by the Trial Court: On August 11, 1988, the court decreed the suit, directing the appellants to deposit the balance amount (₹9,214 after adjusting the pre-deposited 1/5th) by October 10, 1988.
3. Error in Deposit: The appellants deposited ₹7,600 instead of ₹7,614 due to a minor calculation error. This led to a ₹14 deficiency.
4. Respondents’ Objection: The respondents filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit due to non-compliance with the decree.
5. Subsequent Applications: The appellants sought permission to deposit the deficient amount and condonation of delay in doing so. Both requests were denied by the trial court.
6. High Court Review: The appellants’ revision petition was initially allowed by the High Court but dismissed upon review.
7. Appeal to Supreme Court: The appellants argued bona fide error and judicial oversight, asserting that the minor deficiency warranted relief under Section 148 CPC.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether courts have the discretion under Section 148 CPC to extend time for deposit in pre-emption suits after the expiry of the prescribed period.
2. Whether the appellants’ minor deficiency in deposit constituted a bona fide error meriting judicial intervention.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The appellants contended that the deficiency in deposit occurred due to a bona fide calculation error.
2. They argued that the court’s direction to deposit ₹7,600, instead of ₹7,614, contributed to the mistake.
3. Relying on precedents like Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 and Jang Singh v. Brij Lal [1964] 2 SCR 145, the appellants emphasized the principle of judicial discretion to remedy minor errors.
4. The appellants stated they were illiterate and acted promptly upon discovering the deficiency.
5. They contended that equity demanded extension of time for depositing ₹14, as the deficiency was negligible and unintentional.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with explicit terms of the decree, and negligence should not be condoned.
2. They emphasized that the appellants’ application for condonation of delay lacked sufficient reasons.
3. The respondents asserted that judicial discretion should not be exercised to benefit parties guilty of inaction or negligence.
4. They maintained that the High Court correctly dismissed the revision petition after review.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Allows courts to extend time for any act to be done under their orders, even after the prescribed period has expired, provided sufficient cause is shown.

I) Judgement

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Section 148 CPC empowers courts to extend the time for deposit in pre-emption suits when the deficiency is due to a bona fide mistake. The Court emphasized that the discretion must be exercised to prevent undue hardship arising from minor, non-negligent errors.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court remarked on the importance of equity in procedural laws, noting that strict adherence to timelines should not outweigh considerations of fairness.

c. Guidelines

1. Judicial discretion under Section 148 CPC can remedy minor errors in deposit amounts.
2. The deficiency must result from a bona fide mistake, not negligence or inaction.
3. Courts must balance procedural compliance with principles of equity and justice.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to fairness in procedural law, ensuring litigants are not penalized for minor, inadvertent errors. However, by imposing costs on the appellants, the Court signaled the importance of diligence in compliance with decrees.

K) References

1. Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17.
2. Jang Singh v. Brij Lal [1964] 2 SCR 145.
3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.