The petitioner's suit for specific performance was dismissed on the ground that she failed to deposit the balance sale consideration. She filed application for return of the balance amount .......

 The petitioner's suit for specific performance was dismissed on the ground that she failed to deposit the balance sale consideration. She filed application for return of the balance amount which application was repeatedly dismissed on the ground that the fact that the petitioner's application was allowed is not recorded in the order sheet of the Trial Court. Held: The petitioner did apply for permission to deposit the balance amount of consideration as per direction of the Trial Court albeit lesser amount and on side margins of the said application, it has been recorded that the application is "allowed" and duly signed by the then Presiding Officer of the Court. This Court is of the opinion that the Courts are not to act mechanically. It is surprising that the Trial Court has simply ignored that there is no adverse claimant of the amount. The Trial Court repeatedly fell in error in not appreciating its own record to become instrumental in perpetuating injustice. If the Trial Court after allowing the application of the petitioner to deposit the amount did not record the same in the order sheet, the same is inaction on part of the Court, which cannot be made basis of harm to the petitioner. This is trite and established law and forms the philosophical and jurisprudential basis of the established principle that no one can be prejudiced by the act of the Court based on maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (the act of the Court harms no one).

Writ 57749/23
Saima Batool Vs ADJ etc
Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
30-04-2024
2024 LHC 2443