NEW DELHI: Admitting judges can also commit mistakes as they are human, SC said courts should not shy away from accepting them and rectifying errors if committed.The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means the act of the court shall prejudice no one, is a principle firmly embedded in Indian jurisprudence and no party should suffer owing to an error, delay or inadvertence attributable to the court itself, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said.It said the maxim thus operates as a constant reminder that the court’s authority must be exercised not to the disadvantage of litigants but in furtherance of justice. “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,” the bench said.SC accepted there was an omission on its part, wherein it did not clarify in its judgment that possession of a building in Chandigarh would be handed over upon receipt of amount awarded by it. Taking advantage of its omission, an “unscrupulous litigant” refused to hand over the possession of the building despite being paid Rs 2 crore as directed by the apex court.In this case, the litigant had agreed to buy the property in 1989, paid an advance of Rs 25,000 and took possession of the property. But soon litigation started and the property’s ownership could not be transferred to him. Thirty-nine years down the line, SC brought the litigation to an end by directing he should be paid Rs 2 crore in lieu of the earnest money of Rs 25,000 that was paid in 1989. However, SC, while delivering its judgment, did not mention that he, in turn, had to hand over the possession of the property to its owner. This led to a fresh round litigation as the owner approached trial court and then Punjab and Haryana HC, which granted order in his favour.The apex court upheld the order passed by the courts and imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the “unscrupulous litigant” — the buyer.
