'Avoidable Litigation': SC Allows Appeal In A Dispute About Non-Deposit Of ₹14 In A Suit For Pre-Emption; Imposes 1L Costs On Appellant

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal that raised a dispute about non-deposit of ₹ 14 in a suit for pre-emption.

The Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on appellant for making the other litigate for decades.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said, “In the instant case as well the balance amount to be deposited by the appellant was not specified in the decree. The deficiency was only ₹ 14/-. The appellants had already deposited ₹ 9,200/- including the preemption amount already deposited. When the application was filed seeking permission to deposit the amount along with the Treasury Challan, the error was not noticed by the Court. At the very first stage, in response to the application filed by the respondents to pass appropriate order on account of deficiency by the appellants to deposit the amount as directed by the court, the appellants stated that in case there is any deficiency, they are ready to make it good. The court could have considered the same and passed appropriate orders. However, the matter remained pending for this.”

"The case in hand is an example of a party suffering on account of total casualness in dealing with the matter. An avoidable litigation.",the court remarked.

Advocate J.B. Mudgal represented the appellant while Advocate S.P. Laller represented the respondents.

In this case, a part of the land was sold to the respondents/defendants and the predecessor in-interest of the appellants filed a suit for pre-emption. The same was decreed by the Trial Court in 1988 and the predecessor in-interest was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,214/- minus 1/5th of the pre-emption amount already deposited. The said predecessor of the appellants filed an application along with Treasury Challan in triplicate, seeking permission to deposit the amount as directed by the Trial Court. On the application, the Trial Court passed the order for deposit of Rs. 7,600/- and the said amount was deposited on the same day.

Thereafter, an application was moved by the judgment-debtor (defendant-respondent), seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant-plaintiff on which a report was submitted by the office and it was found that the amount deposited was less by Rs. 14/-. The judgment-debtor filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on account of non-compliance of the direction given in the judgment and decree. While the same was pending, the appellant filed an application seeking permission of the court to deposit deficit amount of Rs. 14/-. He also filed an application for condonation of delay but his applications were dismissed. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court which allowed his revision petition but on a review application filed by the respondents, the order was recalled and the same was dismissed. Hence, he approached the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “An avoidable litigation. … It is the pleaded case of the appellants in the application filed for permission to deposit the deficit balance of ₹ 14/- dated 05.03.1991, that the applicant (late Kanihya, predecessor in-interest of the appellants) is in possession of the property and mutation has already been entered in his name in the revenue record.”

The Court, therefore, permitted the appellants (legal representatives) to deposit a sum of Rs. 14/- to the Trial Court on or before May 20, 2024 and allowed the respondents to withdraw the entire amount deposited.

The Court further noted that on account of error on part of the appellants, the respondents were made to litigate for decades together upto the Supreme Court.

“We deem it appropriate to compensate them. Hence, we direct the appellants to pay a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- to the respondents”, it directed.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal but imposed a cost on the appellants.

Cause Title- Kanihya @ Kanhi (Dead) Through LRs. v. Sukhi Ram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 374)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates J. B. Mudgal, Vanshika Mudgil, and AOR R. C. Kaushik.

Respondents: Advocates S.P. Laller, Anil Hooda, Priyank, and AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment