Act of Court

Prejudice must not be caused to litigants because of any mistake of Courts, though the litigants and their counsel are also required to be vigilant.

No one can be prejudiced by an act of the Court.

Where Court does not comply with mandatory provision of law or omits to pass an order in the manner prescribed by law, then litigant / parties cannot be taxed, much less penalized for act or commission of the Court

Fault in such cases lie with Court and not with litigants and no litigant should suffer on such account unless he / they contumaciously negligent and deliberately not complied with mandatory provision of law.

No one can be prejudiced by an act of the Court.

No one to be prejudiced for the act and omission of the Court.

No one should suffer for any act or omission of the Court or of its official.

Party not to suffer by an act of the court.

High Court directed to convert Succession Miscellaneous Application (SMA) into administrative suit but later on said application was dismissed for not impleading proper legal heirs

Validity

Once the Court competently ordered conversion of proceedings from SMA to administrative suit, then direction in former proceedings would lose its value and weight and things were to proceed as per procedure, provided for later (converted) proceedings

Suit for administration could not be dismissed simply for the reason that there could also be some other legal heirs, not made party in suit

Inquiry in such regard could competently be done within the scope of administrative suit

Such was an inadvertent mistake of Court which should not result in prejudicing anybody

Order converting SMA into administrative suit held the field and at the time of subsequent order i.e. dismissal of SMA if it would have been pointed out so that such subsequent order could not have passed

Bona fide inadvertent mistake even of Court could always be corrected/ratified by exercising powers provided by S.114, C.P.C. coupled with inherent jurisdiction within the meaning of S.151, C.P.C., which was meant for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court

Administrative suit was restored in circumstances.

Banking Court disposed of all applications while confirming auction proceedings in favour of auction purchaser and claim of objection petitioner was misconceived

Effect

Inadvertence, mistake, error or irregularity on the part of court could not take away rights of auction purchaser which accrued in his favour when he deposited bid amount as provided under law

Both applications under O.XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C. were filed without substantial compliance of O.XXI, Rule 89(1)(a) and (b), C.P.C. and it could be considered as if no such applications had been preferred

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Banking Court, whereby objections petitions were dismissed and sale was confirmed in favour of auction purchaser

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Banking Court disposed of all applications while confirming auction proceedings in favour of auction-purchaser and claim of objection petitioner was misconceived

Effect

Inadvertence, mistake, error or irregularity on the part of court could not take away rights of auction-purchaser which accrued in his favour when he deposited bid amount as provided under law

Both applications under Order XXI, Rule, 89, C.P.C. were filed without substantial compliance of Order XXI, Rule 89 1)(a) and (b) C.P.C. and it could be considered as if no such applications had been preferred

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Banking Court, whereby objections petitions were dismissed and sale was confirmed in favour of auction-purchaser

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Act of court should not prejudice any person including the prosecution, nor anyone should suffer for the act or omission of the court, nor it should prejudice anyone.

Act of court should not prejudice anyone.

Act or omission of court would not suffer or prejudice anyone.

Act of court should not prejudice anyone.

No one shall suffer on account of an error of court.

No one shall suffer on account of an error of Court.

Act of court would prejudice no man.

Decree for specific performance of agreement to sell was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondent and execution of the decree was allowed by Executing Court vide order dated 12-9-1985

Only obligation on decree-holder, in order to get sale-deed executed in his favour was deposit of balance sale consideration, which he deposited on 20-5-1986

Sale-deed was executed on 10-3-2007, in favour of respondent through Court official

Petitioners who were legal heirs of deceased judgment-debtors raised the plea that execution of decree was barred by limitation

Validity

After deposit of balance sale consideration by decree-holder on 20-5-1986, nothing was to be done on the part of decree-holder

Official of Court was to execute sale-deed in favour of decree-holder

Delay in execution of sale-deed could only be attributed to judgment-debtors and after their death to their legal heirs or to official of Trial Court

After deposit of balance sale consideration there was no need for decree-holders to move separate application to seek registration of sale-deed

Act of Court should prejudice no one and decree-holders or their legal representatives could not be denied fruits of decree merely because of the default of judgment-debtors to discharge their obligation under the decree or of the official of Trial Court

Not necessary that upon death of judgment-debtors during pendency of execution proceedings, legal representatives should be made a party

Decree could be executed without impleading legal representatives of judgment-debtors unless decree-holder could not get his decree satisfied without obtaining an order against legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtors for its execution

Sale-deed had been executed in favour of respondent, there was nothing left in the case

High Court declined to interfere in execution of sale-deed

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Any act of Court shall prejudice no man.

No party should be made to suffer due to any mistake of court.

No person should be made to suffer on account of any act or omission of the court or its officers.

Party could not be condemned on account of an act of Court.

Act of court could not prejudice ally one.

No party can be made to suffer for the error of the Court and the respondent/department was bound to follow the requirements laid down in the law of evidence where in absence of original record photocopies were admissible as a piece of evidence.

An act of Court should not prejudice any person nor any person should suffer for the act or omission of Court.

No person should suffer for act or omission of Court and act of Court should not prejudice anyone.

Nobody should be prejudiced by act of Court.

No party shall be made to suffer due to the act or omission of the Court in the performance of its duties.

Litigant should not be allowed to suffer for acts of the Court.

Mistake of Court should not prejudice litigant and litigant could not be left to suffer because of negligence of Court in not framing an issue in the light of pleadings of parties especially when both rival suits of parties were consolidated.

No person should suffer on account of act of Court and an order passed by the Court shall cause no prejudice to any of the parties.

One of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that act of the Court does not use injury to any of the suiters

Such expression does not mean act of primary Court or of any intermediate Court of Appeal, but act of the Court as a whole lowest Court, which entertains jurisdiction over the matter up to the highest Court, which finally disposes of the case.

Rule that no one shall be prejudiced on account of an act of Court, would only be applicable in the cases, where Court had the authority to pass the order but the order was erroneous

Where, however, the Court lacked the authority and absolutely had no jurisdiction, notwithstanding such order having been passed by the Court, a person could not put a premium on void order.

No one could be punished for an act of Court.

No one should suffer by any act of a Court.

No person shall suffer for the act of the Court.

Where it was act of the Court demonstrated in the decree sheet which prompted the respondents to file the appeal before the District Judge, it would really be a harsh view to non-suit the respondents for approaching the wrong appellate forum

Party should not be made to suffer on account of act/omission on the part of the Court or other State functionaries.

Act of the Court should prejudice no man.

None should be allowed to suffer for the act of Court.

Parties could not be made to suffer for act of the Court, howsoever erroneous and misconceived such act might be.

Mistake of Court should not prejudice a party.

Nobody should be penalized by the act of the Court.

Nobody should be penalized by the act of the Court or by the act of the public functionaries.

Nobody should be penalised by the act of Court.

Nobody should be penalized by the act of the Court.

Nobody should be prejudiced by the act of the Court.

Not to injure a litigant.

No body should be penalized by the act of Court.

Nobody could be penalized for the mistake of the Court or its officials.

Mistake of the Court should not prejudice any-one.