Judgment Admitting Human Fallibility of Judges
A very important judgment delivered by a Bench of Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta admitted that judges can also commit errors in their judgments as they are also humans. Further the judgment also states that the courts should no shy away from accepting them and rectifying their errors if committed. The importance of the maxim “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit” which means that act of court shall prejudice no one, is a principle well enshrined in legal jurisprudence. It also assures that no party should suffer owing to an error, delay or inadvertence attributable to the court itself.
The aforesaid dictum is very much in vogue and as a paramount duty that the courts should exercise their authorities not to be detrimental to the litigants but be instrumental to uphold justice. The aforesaid judgment emphatically confirms as seen in the judgment, “After all, to err is human, and when an inadvertent omission is brought to the court’s attention, it becomes the court’s solemn duty to ensure that no party suffers on account of such mistakes. In such circumstances, the court is obliged to restore the party to the very position he would have occupied had the error not occurred.”
Brief Facts Of The Case
The brief facts of the case based on the judgment of the Apex Court are as follows.
Preamble Of The Judgment
The preamble of the judgment starts with the following observations.
1. Leave granted.
2. Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer. After this Court on 1st April, 2025 set aside the decree but moulded equitable relief by directing payment of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores), a sum 800 (eight hundred) times the ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) paid as earnest money in 1989, the appellant refused the tender, obstructed execution, and has returned to this Court in an effort to delay the inevitable.
This appeal is a cautionary tale about how the pursuit of a windfall can turn the process of law against those who seek to exploit it, in order to retain possession while spurning an extraordinary monetary award. The appellant has shot himself in the foot and in the same breath dug his own grave. Equity will not allow unjust enrichment. The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls. A party that has received such compensation must yield possession.
Key Court Findings
The judgment states, “This Court had awarded the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rs. Two Crores only) to the appellant to ensure that the suit property of the respondents continues with them and at the same time balance the equities between the parties. The appellant who had won from three Courts and a period of 36 years had passed since the time of execution of the agreement is suitably compensated.
The appellant was neither a tenant nor a licencee or lessee on the ground floor of the suit property. He had been inducted only because of the agreement to sell. Once it has been held that no relief can be granted for specific performance and an extraordinary amount has been awarded to compensate the meagre amount of advance is only to adjust the equities. Appellant cannot have any right to resist possession and should not have obstructed or resisted the delivery of possession.” The amount paid was inclusive of interest for the long-lost period.
However, the original SC judgment (as noticed by the new bench) omitted a clear directive that possession of the property must be handed over to the owner once the amount was paid. That omission was due to “inadvertence” or an oversight by the Court itself. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the appellant was neither a tenant nor a licencee or lessee on the ground floor of the suit property.
He had been inducted only because of the agreement to sell. Once it has been held that no relief can be granted for specific performance and an extraordinary amount has been awarded to compensate the meagre amount of advance is only to adjust the equities. Appellant cannot have any right to resist possession and should not have obstructed or resisted the delivery of possession
Reasons Why Appellant Had No Locus
“The appellant has no locus or justification to hold on to the possession for the additional following reasons:
- His suit for permanent injunction based upon his possession pursuant to the agreement to sell had been dismissed on 15th June, 1990 and had attained finality.
- Apparently, it was not pointed out at the time of the hearing of the Civil Appeal Nos. 4647-4648 of 2025 that the appellant was continuing in possession otherwise at that very stage this aspect would have been clarified and specific direction would have been issued that the amount of Rupees Two Crores was being paid by the respondents to the appellant not only in lieu of earnest money but also that the appellant would be required to hand over possession to the respondents.
Maxim: Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit
“The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, is a principle firmly embedded in our jurisprudence… This Court long back in the decision of three-Judges in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal3… ‘There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant…’”
Operative Portion Of Judgment
“We are thus satisfied that the Executing Court and the High Court have taken a correct view in directing for issuance of warrants of possession with police assistance. The appeal, therefore, deserves dismissal.”
“For all the reasons recorded above, we dismiss the appeal with cost which is quantified as Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within 4 weeks failing which it will carry an interest component of 12% per annum…”
Important Observations On Judicial Duty
There have been many instances of such errors apparent found in many cases handled by various Courts including High Courts and Supreme Court and Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals etc. But unfortunately, and regrettably when such apparent errors are brought to the notice of the legal entities, cognizance of such errors are not taken note of leading to miscarriage of justice. It is hoped after the aforesaid judgment, the attention of all legal entities dealing with delivering justice will turn towards the contention of this judgment without fail to render justice.
“Judicial excellence requires an understanding that the law is more than an intellectual game and more than a mental exercise. He or she must recognize that real people with real problems are affected by the decisions rendered by the court. Justice, after all, may be blind, but it should not be deaf.”
Written By: T. R. Radhakrishnan, Banking & Management Consultant, NPA Resolution Consultant, H.R. Trainer: Corporates, Colleges & Schools, & Freelance Writer, No. 8, Morya Gardens, Kanadia Road, Indoe.452016 (Madhya Pradesh)
Ph no: (0)9229248048 E-mail: [email protected]
