Court invokes principles of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit and Nunc Pro Tunc to rectify mistaken order, emphasizing that court errors must not prejudice litigants
In a recent judgment dated September 10, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered an important ruling in the case of Vijay Sharma v. State of Haryana, where the court recalled a previous order imposing costs on a Superintendent of Police due to an inadvertent error in recording factual details. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental legal maxim that no act of the court should harm a litigant, and courts are duty-bound to rectify their mistakes to restore affected parties to their rightful position.
The case arose after an order dated August 18, 2026, mandated the State counsel to file a reply by the next hearing date, failing which the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mewat, would be liable to pay costs of Rs. 5,000. On the hearing date, September 7, 2026, although the State sought to file its reply, the court declined the prayer citing lack of plausible cause for delay and imposed the costs on the SP, directing the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) to deduct the sum from the SP's salary.
However, the court staff brought to the judge's attention that the costs order was based on an erroneous recording of facts because the State had indeed sought to file the reply on time. Recognizing this as a mistake caused by the court's own act, Justice Sumeet Goel invoked two cardinal principles of jurisprudence - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and Nunc Pro Tunc (now for then) - to recall the cost imposition order.
The judgment extensively reviewed precedents from the Supreme Court of India, notably the cases of Jang Singh vs. Brij Lal (1966 AIR 1631), Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb (AIR 1999 SC 2089), Bhupinder Singh vs. Unitech Limited (2023 LiveLaw(SC) 263), and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni (2024 INSC 102). These rulings collectively underscore that courts possess inherent and ancillary powers to recall orders if they are founded on patent errors that prejudice a party, provided no other remedy like appeal or revision is available or was waived.
The High Court clarified that the error must be self-evident and not subject to prolonged debate. Since the imposition of costs on the SP was based solely on a misrecording of the factual position, it was unjust to allow the costs order to stand. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated September 7, 2026, recalling the direction to deduct Rs. 5,000 from the SP's salary and directing that the revised order forms part of the case record.
This decision highlights the court's commitment to fairness and equity by ensuring litigants are not prejudiced by inadvertent judicial errors. It also serves as an important reminder of the courts' powers to correct their own mistakes promptly to uphold justice.
Bottom Line:
The Court has the power to recall its order if there is an error caused by the Court, which prejudices a litigant, under the principles of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit and Nunc Pro Tunc.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
Vijay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978369
