Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge in appeal, dismissing the appellant's application under S.22 of Act 31 of 1958, in reversal of the order of the Munsiff. Under S.22 (1) (a) of the Act, the appellant was bound to deposit one half of the purchase-money, in addition to the costs of execution. The purchase-money being Rs. 605.25 p., the appellant was bound to deposit Rs. 302.63 p., but the deposit as made by her was short by 12 p. The appellant's prayer to set aside the sale was granted by the Munsiff, relying on the maxim, de minimis non curat lex; afterwards the appellant made good the deposit by paying 12 p. more as permitted. The Judge, however felt constrained by the weight of certain decided cases referred to by him, to negative the application of the maxim. The question for consideration in second appeal is whether this view of the judge is right or not. 2. This second appeal being not maintainable, the appellant moved C.M.P. 8116 of 1964 for converting it into a revision petition; allowing the petition, I treat this second appeal as a civil revision petition. 3. The following is an extract from the exposition of the maxim by Herbert Broom, in his work on "A Selection of Legal Maxims", 10th edition, pages 89 and 90: "Where trifling irregularities or even infractions Of the strict letter of the law are brought under the notice of the Court, the maxim de minimis non curat lex is of frequent practical application. It has, for instance, been applied to support a rate, in the assessment of which there were some comparatively trifling omissions of established forms. So, with reference to proceedings for an infringement of the revenue laws, Sir W. Scott observed that the Court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in the application of statutes. The law permits the qualification implied in the ancient maxim, de minimis non curat lex. Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. The law permits the qualification implied in the ancient maxim, de minimis non curat lex. Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked." I see noting in the present case, which precludes the application of the maxim for ignoring this deficit of 12 p. in the deposit made by the appellant, which itself was made up afterwards, though beyond time. In applying the maxim, it does not seem material that the trifle ignored, amounted to an infraction of a mandatory provision of law or as stated above of the strict letter of the law, because the principle is that trifles shall be ignored, in other words, trifling deviations shall be deemed non est. The maxim does not in my opinion clash with the general rule of interpretation, that a provision like S.22 by which vested rights are divested, must be strictly complied with. 4. In Mt. Rukmini Kuer v. Balmik Prasad A.I.R. 1937 Patna 409 relied on for the appellant, there was a deficit of four annas in the deposit made under Order XXXI, R.89, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale; the maxim was applied and the deficiency in the deposit was overlooked. Other cases, referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, in which mistakes of the court or of its officer had supervened are distinguishable and need not be considered. Kalidasa Chetty v. Dodda Siddh Chetty A.I.R. 1947 Madras 56 however, was a case of deficiency in deposit of Re. 1-4-0 and the maxim was relied on at the hearing, but the judge felt bound to follow the bench decision in Kalinga Hebbra v. Narasimha Hebbra 21 M. L. J. 631. The latter was decided under S.310-A of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 corresponding to Order XXI, R.89 of the Code of 1908; the amount of shortage in the deposit is not ascertainable from the report of the case. It was ruled that the right conferred on the judgment-debtor by S.310-A is a special right and that it must be strictly complied with. It was ruled that the right conferred on the judgment-debtor by S.310-A is a special right and that it must be strictly complied with. The bench followed the decision of the full bench of the Calcutta High Court in Chundi Charan Mandal v, Bankey Behary Lal Mandal I.L.R. 26 Calcutta 449 in which there was a controversy as to whether the deposit was short by Rs. 48 or by Rs. 11. The court did not decide this, but held that S.310-A must be strictly complied with, and dismissed the application made under it, as not being supported by the prescribed deposit. In these two cases, apparently the maxim was not relied on and was not applied. For these reasons, speaking with respect, Kalidas Chetty v. Dodda Siddha Chetty A.I.R. 1947 Madras 56 cannot be regarded as an authority against the appellant. 5. Of the cases referred to by the Judge, Varki Kuruvilla v. Thomma Ouseph 19 T.L.T. 430 decided under S.15 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act, is nearest in point. The deposit was short by Rs. 2-12-2 but the only question which the court considered was whether it had jurisdiction to condone the default in making the additional deposit. Naturally, on the terms of the section, this question was answered in the negative, the principle being stated to be, that "where a statute requires a certain act to be performed in a certain manner so as to enable a party to secure the right conferred on him by the statute, it is incumbent upon such party to conform to the provisions of the Act in every respect. He cannot evade the mandatory provisions of a statute by imputing carelessness, negligence or want of competence to those whom he employed for the purpose of performing his duties". Stated in this form, no exception can be taken to it; the maxim, however, was not relied on. In Raman Ramankutty v. Anthrose Joseph 1952 K.L.T. 10 the deficit was about fs. 500, & the question turned on the degree of responsibility of the court or of its officer for a mistake committed by the applicant in making a short deposit. Similarly, in Kalliyani Amma Goury Amma v. K. Purushothaman Unni AIR. 1953 T. C. 476 where the deficit was fs. 311/4 the maxim was not relied on. The court held that the delay in making up the deficiency could not be condoned. Similarly, in Kalliyani Amma Goury Amma v. K. Purushothaman Unni AIR. 1953 T. C. 476 where the deficit was fs. 311/4 the maxim was not relied on. The court held that the delay in making up the deficiency could not be condoned. These decisions are no authority against the application of the maxim. 6. For the above reasons, the order of the Additional District Judge is hereby set aside, the order of the Munsiff is restored & the second appeal is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs in this court & in the lower appellate court.