Invoking the high principle that “no act of Courts should harm a litigant,” the Supreme Court of India on October 7, 2025, corrected an “inadvertent omission” in its own prior judgment. In doing so, it held that a litigant who was awarded extraordinary monetary compensation after her suit for specific performance was dismissed cannot refuse to hand over possession of the disputed property. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the court’s “bounden duty” to prevent injustice arising from its own mistakes.
Summary of the Case
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that upheld an Executing Court’s decision to issue a warrant of possession. The appellant’s suit for specific performance of a 1989 sale agreement had previously been dismissed by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2025. However, the Court had moulded the relief and awarded her ₹2 crores. When the respondents tendered the amount, the appellant refused it and resisted handing over possession, arguing the prior judgment did not explicitly order it. The Supreme Court rectified this omission and dismissed the appeal with costs of ₹10 lakhs.
Background of the Litigation
The dispute originated from an agreement to sell dated June 12, 1989, for a property valued at ₹14,50,000, with ₹25,000 paid as earnest money. The appellant was given possession of the ground floor. After an initial injunction suit was withdrawn, the appellant filed for specific performance and succeeded in the Trial Court and the High Court.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on April 1, 2025, allowed their appeal, finding the suit barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. However, exercising its equitable jurisdiction, the Court directed the defendants to pay the plaintiff ₹2 crores, noting this was 800 times the earnest money. When the appellant refused the payment and possession, the Executing Court issued a warrant for possession, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, senior counsel for the appellant, argued that his client was entitled to retain possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He contended that since the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment did not direct the handover of possession, the respondents’ only remedy was to file a new suit for possession.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The crux of the Supreme Court’s analysis rested on its duty to rectify its own errors to prevent injustice. The bench acknowledged that its earlier judgment had an “inadvertent omission” in not explicitly directing the handover of possession.
To remedy this, the bench invoked the legal maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ (the act of the Court shall prejudice no one). It held that it was its solemn duty to ensure no party suffers from a court’s mistake. Quoting its previous decision in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, the Court affirmed its guiding principle:
“There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant, and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake.”
The Court concluded that the appellant was trying to take “undue advantage of an omission” in the earlier judgment. It firmly rejected her contentions, describing the appeal as a “cautionary tale about how the pursuit of a windfall can turn the process of law against those who seek to exploit it.” The bench noted with disapproval, “Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer.”
It was held that the appellant had no right to retain possession, as her claim was based entirely on the agreement to sell, the specific performance of which had been denied. The Court clarified that “The compensation of Rupees Two Crores was awarded only to bring an end to the litigation and put a quietus.”
The Decision
For the reasons recorded, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It further imposed costs of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) on the appellant, to be paid to the respondents within four weeks, failing which it would attract interest at 12% per annum.
