Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption and the same was decreed on the statement made by the vendee (respondent) wherein it was stated that suit be decreed against him on payment of price of the land and the stamp and registration fee etc. On the basis of the aforementioned statement the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the decree-holder was to deposit the entire pre-emption money amounting to Rs. 5,710/-. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 5,710/- was deposited within the stipulated period. However, when the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner saw the judgment and decree he found that a decree had been passed wherein the Court had directed that a sum of Rs. 5,710.75 be deposited by the plaintiff. The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to affix 75 paise in court. The application was contested by the respondent and the Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, vide his order dated 5.9.1984 dismissed the application holding that the same was not bonafide, and that the decree holders can not take advantage of his own wrong. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present revision. 2. Mr. Mani Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner and consequently it should have allowed the petitioner to deposit 75 paise in Court in view of the provisions of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that as the shortfall in the deposit was only to the tune of 75 paise, hence, it is clear that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the Court should have exercised his discretionary powers under Section 148 CPC and should have accepted the shortfall in the deposit of the amount. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in Jogdhavan v. Babu Ram and Ors.,1 A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 57 where their Lordships have held as under:- "Where the decree-holder, in a pre-emption suit, deposited the entire amount of purchase money together with the costs decreed against him, less 25 paise within the time fixed by the Court and 25 paise too were deposited, but beyond time the finding of the first executing appellate Court that the non-deposit could not be due to any bona fide mistake, was absolutely untenable for the reason that while the decree- holder had deposited in total Rs. 17,93.00 from time to time as directed by the Courts, there was absolutely no reason as to why he would not have deposited 25 paise, unless it was due to a mistake. Further, it was pre-eminently a case in which the first execution appellate Court ought to have exercised its discretionary powers under Section 148 and accepted the delayed deposit of 25 paise, as was done by the original executing Court." 3. In view of the above, the Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, clearly erred in dismissing the application and in not exercising his powers under Section 148 CPC. 4. Resultantly, the present revision is allowed and the order dated 5.9.1984 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to deposit a sum of Rs. 0.75 paise before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.