Musammat Rukmini Kuer vs Balmik Prasad and Another

Wort, J.—If I were to confirm the decision of the Court below in this case, it would in any judgment be reducing the law to an absurdity. There is no doubt that the full amount was deposited, although there was a mistake in challan to the extent of 4 annas, a double mistake in fact, because the 4 annas was not deposited in the first instance, that, is to say, when the deposit was first made there was a deficit in favour of the auction-purchaser of 4 annas, and when the deficit was deposited on April 14, the judgment-debtor made the mistake of depositing it in favour of the decree-holder. I do not know what the exact system is in the Court below with regard to these matters, but I can only gather it from the reported decisions in so far as they throw any light upon the matter. But I propose to give no countenance to the idea that the Court, either on the order of the Judge or other person in authority, could not have altered the challan for the purpose of putting matters in order. For this Court to hold that the judgment-debtor in this case had not in substance complied with the strict letter of the law would, in my judgment, be ignoring the well-known principle of de minimis non curat lex. In my judgment the Judge was quite irregular in this case, although perhaps his decision is understandable by reason of the authorities of this Court in not holding that the judgment debtor was entitled to have the sale set aside. The Rule is made absolute, but there will be no costs.