JUGLAL Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption and the same was decreed on the statement made by the vendee (respondent) wherein it was stated that suit be decreed against him on payment of price of the land and the stamp and registration fee etc. On the basis of the aforementioned statement the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the decree-holder was to deposit the entire pre-emption money amounting to Rs. 5,710/-. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 5,710/- was deposited within the stipulated period. However, when the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner saw the judgment and decree he found that a decree had been passed wherein the Court had directed that a sum of Rs. 5,710.75 be deposited by the plaintiff. The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to affix 75 paise in court. The application was contested by the respondent and the Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, vide his order dated 5.9.1984 dismissed the application holding that the same was not bonafide, and that the decree holders can not take advantage of his own wrong. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(2.) Mr. Mani Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner and consequently it should have allowed the petitioner to deposit 75 paise in Court in view of the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that as the shortfall in the deposit was only to the tune of 75 paise, hence, it is clear that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the Court should have exercised his discretionary powers under Section 148 CPC and should have accepted the shortfall in the deposit of the amount. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in Jogdhavan v. Babu Ram and Ors.,1 A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 57 where their Lordships have held as under:-

(3.) In view of the above, the Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, clearly erred in dismissing the application and in not exercising his powers under Section 148 CPC.