JATTI Vs. DHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision was referred by me with the concurrence of the Chief Justice for decision by a larger Bench and that is how it has been placed before us.

(2.) The facts are mentioned in the referring order and I reproduce that part of the order :-

(3.) The contention of Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in the application for deposit, Rs. 7,400/- is mentioned instead of Rs. 7,403/-. It is also conceded that mistake was made by the official of the Court in scoring the amount of Rs. 7400/- and instead inserting the amount of Rs. 7303/-, but the learned Counsel maintains that we must assume that the intention of the respondent was that he wanted only to deposit Rs. 7400/- and not Rs. 7403/-, and therefore, even if benefit is given to him of the mistake committed by the Court, it will still make his deposit short by Rs. 3/-. On the surface, this argument is not only plausible but is convincing, but the argument loses sight of the fact that it is impossible to predict what would have happened between the interval when the amount of Rs. 7400/- was mentioned in the application and the time when actually the deposit was to be made. The possibility that the mistake could have been discovered cannot be ruled out. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the mistake could not be discovered because in the meantime the Court had intervened and scored off the sum of Rs. 7400/- and put instead Rs. 7303/-. Therefore, there is no manner by which we can accept the contention of Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that necessarily the respondent deposited Rs. 7400/- and not Rs. 7403/-. The possibility is very much there that when the Court interfered it could have interfered to bring on record the exact amount of Rs. 7403/-, and if that had happened there can be no question of the suit for pre-emption being dismissed for want of deposit of Rs. 3/-. It is not disputed that the mistake of Court can be set right and no one can be penalised for such a mistake. Indeed, this matter is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, 1963 65 PunLR 884. It is no doubt true that in my referring order I did entertain a doubt as to whether the decision of the Supreme Court would be applicable to the facts of the present case, but I was not very certain as to what would be the correct position on the facts of the present case and it was for that reason that I thought it fit to refer this case to a larger Bench. I have had the able assistance of my learned brother and I am now clear in my mind that the trial Court was right in condoning the delay in allowing the decree-holders to make good the shortfall. No other conclusion is possible.