Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit

Act of Court should prejudice no man.

Maxim comes into play, with a view to obviate hardships which may otherwise be the result of the errors of the Court itself

Where non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law occurs by' complying with the direction of the Court which is not in conformity with the law, the party complying therewith is not to be penalised.

Act of Court shall prejudice no man.

Vires of R. 1.8(b), West Pakistan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1963 on the touchstone of S. 18, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

Service Tribunals finding that in the light of S. 18, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, Government had no authority to deduct or withhold any amount due to it from the pension of retired Government servant and that West Pakistan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1963 providing for such deduction or recovery by Government for its dues were nugatory in terms of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974

Validity

Provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, particularly S. 18 thereof was not in conflict with R. 1.8(b), West Pakistan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1963

Where excess amount had been paid or in judicial or departmental proceedings any amount was found due from retired Government servant, as result of losses caused to Government, same could be recovered from him

Condition precedent for such recovery was that losses in question were found in judicial or departmental proceedings and the same had been caused to Government by negligence or fraud of such Government pensioner

No inquiry, however, could be conducted after one year of retirement of pensioner

Where no such inquiry had been conducted to determine liability of civil servant Government would have option to initiate inquiry to determine such liability subject to all just exceptions including that of limitation.

Benefit of the dicutm actus curiae neminem gravabit could not be denied to a party on account of contributory negligence of that party.

Trial Court while decreeing suit for specific performance of agreement not only had mentioned in its order last date for deposit of decretal amount, but had also made clear to parties that no further extension of time would be granted

Despite said order, Trial Court showed favour to plaintiff by entertaining his application for extension of time on untenable grounds, took three months for deciding that application and again allowed four months time to plaintiff to deposit decretal amount

Such act of Court was far from being bona fide as after fixing a definite date for payment of decretal amount with a clear order that no further extension of time would be granted, Trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's application and allow him further time

Principle "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of Court shall prejudice no man), would apply in situations where act of Court was honest and bona fide one and not where order passed by Court appeared to be collusive and mala fide.

Actus curiae neminem gravabit" (act of Court shall prejudice no man).

Application.

Contesting respondent having obeyed the order of Court by depositing money by the specified date, the maxim was fully attracted in his favour

Technical objection that the money had not been deposited on the fifteenth day of the date of sale could not be pushed to the extreme where Court itself had ordered deposit of amount by specified date.

One of the first and highest duties of all the Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors.

Where such appeal had been admitted, lapse, if any, held, would be on the part of Court and officials thereof, which could not subsequently be used as a trap for a party-Cardinal principle of administration of Justice, "actus curiae neminem gravabit" i.e., "one of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that acts of Court does no injury to any of suiters" would apply in circumstances

By dismissing appeals of petitioner on preliminary objection after admission, Appellate Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction by law vested in such Court for hearing of appeals.

[Maxim].

No party shall be prejudiced by an act or omission of Court.

S. 12 and Maxim : Actus curiae nominem gravabit (act of Court shall prejudice no man)-Only endorsement of `Stamps not supplied' made on application for-grant of copy but applicant not called upon to supply stamp-Applicant supplying stamps and copy supplied on same day-Requirement of supply of stamps being not communicated to applicant earlier and no pasting being made on notice board after preparation of copy, exclusion of time between date of application and date of preparation of copy, held, deserved by applicant and appeal within time

Party could not be allowed to suffer on account of office of Court; on principle that parties should not suffer due to any act or omission of Court or its officers -[Maxim].

S. 151 read with maxim: Actus curiae nominem gravabit-Court, inherent powers of-Directions in interest of justice-Court in absence of prohibition or procedure in Code of Civil Procedure-Deemed to be possessed of inherent powers necessary to do complete justice according to varying situations-Conclusiveness of some of issues in earlier suit before finalisation of second suit likely to lead to complication and further unnecessary litigation-Possibility of conflicting judgments also existing-Documentary evidence led by both parties in previous suit and controversy largely begged on decision of law points.-Evidence in subsequent suit visualised to consist primarily of documents necessitating resolution of same legal issues-Hearing of subsequent suit if expedited such case not to take long to reach argument stage-Second suit, in circumstances, in interests of justice directed to be heard from day to day, to give longer adjournments only when inevitable and to complete hearing

Court-fee, deficiency of- Specific ordex of Court existing showing deficiency in court-fee having been made good-Petitioners later contending deficiency having not been made good

Court calculating value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and allowing time-Held, indulgence shown by. Court could be sustained on account of earlier order of' Court-But for previous order of Court extension of time for making good deficiency in court-fee in circumstances could not have been justified.

R. 5(2j (b)-Maxim: Actuv curiae neminem gravabit (no act or omission on part of Court should prejudice a party)-There being some confusion about correct amount of fee in respect of notice of opposition-Petitioner's Advocate/agent's clerk likely to have been informed by clerk of Controller of Patents and Designs as alleged that for merwould be intimated about correct fee when ascertained-Controller of Patents and Designs, held, should have condoned delay, if any, relating to payment of fee by virtue of doctrine enunciated in maxim, in circumstances.-[Maxim].

O. XXI, r. 85 read with Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of Court shall prejudice no man)-Execution of decree-Sale Time for payment of purchase money-Non-compliance with provisions of O. XXI, r. 85-Renders sale a nullity-Plea of limitation or waiver or res judicata not available in such eventuality-Collector though issuing erroneous public notices yet such notices as much notice to judgment-debtor as to anyone else -Notices not objected to by judgment-debtor for many years but other parties acting on such notices-Consent of judgment-debtor to procedure adopted by Collector hence to be inferred by necessary implication-Collector executing decree, held, acts as a statutory functionary of Court and his mistakes fully covered by maxim: "actus curiae neminem gravabit" and judgment-debtor's application under O. XX[, r. 85 filed over eight years after confirmation of sale dismissed.-[Syed Brothers, Lahore v. District Council, Lyallpur P L D 1977 Lab. 542 held not applicable].

Actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of Court shall prejudice no man)-Principle applicable to quasi judicial tribunals (e.g. settlement authorities.

actus curiae neminem gravabit (act of Court shall prejudice no man).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 488 (3) proviso 2-Applicant prevented by act of Court from enforcing order of maintenance-Can recover arrears for more than a period of one year-Maxim : Actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man).