Bona Fide Mistake

2022 YLR 650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 22Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10(5)Pre-emptionNon-impleading one of the vendees/necessary partyBona fide mistakeScope

Omission on part of the plaintiff to implead one of the vendees, defendant was impleaded after remand (i.e. in second round of litigation) through amended plaint, as defendant within prescribed period of limitation, did not protect him to give benefit of bona fide mistake

Appellant's suit to the extent of such defendant/vendee was hit by the O.I., R.10(5) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with S.22 of Limitation Act, 1908.

2022 CLC 2126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.24Pre-emptionZar-e-Soim, one Rupee less deposit than that directedBona fide mistakeTrial Court rejected the plaint for non-deposit of 1/3rd of the total sale price of the propertyDistrict Court had dismissed the petitioner's appeal

Petitioner contended that he deposited Rs.3,83,333/- as Zar-e-Soim keeping in view the sale price of Rs.11,50,000/- within time allowed by the Court

Validity

Required deposit of Zar-e-Soim was subject to the order of the Court,therefore, if the Court failed to pass an order to deposit Zar-e-Soim then the pre-emptor could not be penalized for such non-deposit

Trial Court wrongly calculated the 1/3rd of the sale price (Zar-e-Soim) as Rs.3,83,334/- instead of Rs.3,83,333.3333/

Court was only required to direct the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of sale price (Zar-e-Soim) and the Court was not bound to mention specific amount of Zar-e-Soim

Petitioner deposited less amount of Rs.1/- in the light of direction of the Trial Court and deposited less amount of 33 paisa in the light of S.24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Such less deposit was very meager amount

Petitioner deposited deficient amount due to bona-fide mistake which would deserve serious/earnest/compensate consideration as the Courts were under obligation to decide the lis on merit rather as per technicalities

Petitioner made Zar-e-Soim round figure in a lesser side rather the greater side because paisas (coins) were not counted now a days and he was not guilty of contumacy

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

2016 SCMR 40 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 24Pre-emption suitPlaintInadvertent error in mentioning the actual sale consideration of propertyBona fide mistakeAbsence of mala fidesNo undue benefit gained by pre-emptor

Pre-emptor in his plaint inadvertently mentioned the sale consideration paid by vendee to vendor as Rs. 14,00,000, instead of the actual figure of Rs.14,40,000 mentioned in the mutation

Trial Court ordered pre-emptor to deposit one-third of the sale consideration of the property in court

Pre-emptor deposited in court 1/3rd of the amount shown in the plaint i.e. one-third of Rs. 14,00,000

Vendee took the objection that pre-emptor made a short deposit in the court, as the amount to be deposited should have been 1/3rd of Rs. 14,40,000 mentioned in the mutation

Trial Court dismissed the pre-emption suit for non-compliance with order of the court to deposit 1/3rd of the actual sale consideration in court

Appellate Court allowed the pre-emptor to make good the deficiency by depositing the remaining amount in court and remanded the case to Trial Court

Validity

Where a court wanted to impose a penalty like dismissal of suit on account of deposit of deficient amount, then it should be clearly established that it was the pre-emptor who deliberately committed the default and it was not a bona fide mistake

In the present case, due to mistake of fact the draftsman/lawyer (for pre-emptor) inadvertently without any mala fide intent mentioned the sale consideration as Rs.14,00,000 , instead of Rs.14,40,000

For the correction of the same, the, pre-emptor promptly applied to the Trial Court for amendment of the plaint, which fact showed his bona fide intention

Pre-emptor had not gained any undue benefit because he had sincerely and faithfully complied with the initial court order by depositing a huge amount of Rs.4,66,670 thus by not depositing the additional amount of Rs.13,330, he could not be held to be in deliberate non-compliance with the court order

Trial Court had not specifically directed pre-emptor to deposit 1/3rd of the sale consideration mentioned in the mutation

Court was duty bound to clearly tell the plaintiff/pre-emptor that he was required to deposit 1/3rd of the sale consideration shown in the sale deed or mutation etc.

Once a wrong was committed by the Trial Court causing prejudice to the pre-emptor, then, the pre-emptor could not be visited with penalty of dismissal of his suit

Appellate Court had rightly set-aside judgment of Trial Court and allowed the pre-emptor to make good the deficiency by depositing the remaining amount in court

Supreme Court directed that if the pre-emptor had not deposited so far the remaining amount of Rs.13,330 as worked out on the basis of 1/3rd of the total sale consideration of Rs.14,40,000, then he should deposit the same in Trial Court within twenty days

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

1982 SCMR 1105 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 14-Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 19-Limitation-Bona fide mistake-Notification conferring jurisdiction not easily traceable-Counsel for respondents by ignorance due to such fact not filing revision petition in correct forum-Case, held, of bonafide mistake falling within purview of section 14-Time spent in wrong forum excluded, in circumstances of case.-[Limitation].