Pre-emption suit concerning disputed property, where the appellants seek relief due to a calculation error in their deposit. Despite attempts to rectify the shortfall, their application was rejected, leading to an appeal. The court weighs arguments from both sides, citing precedent cases, and ultimately grants relief to the appellants but imposes a significant cost for the prolonged litigation.

1. Background and Disputed Property:
• The appellants file a pre-emption suit claiming co-sharership rights over a property.
• Decree stipulates a specific deposit by a deadline, with dismissal upon failure.
2. Appellants' Deposit and Calculation Error:
• Appellants deposit an amount, but it falls short due to a calculation mistake.
• Their subsequent attempts to rectify the deficit are rejected, prompting an appeal.
3. Appellants' Argument:
• Appellants argue the error was unintentional and should not lead to suit dismissal.
• They cite precedents where courts rectified similar errors.
4. Respondents' Counterargument:
• Respondents argue appellants failed to comply with decree terms.
• They emphasize appellants' responsibility for accurate deposit.
5. Court's Review and Decision:
• Court reviews facts, acknowledges similarities with precedent cases.
• Grants relief to appellants, allowing them to deposit the balance amount.
6. Cost Imposition and Compensation:
• Court imposes a significant cost on appellants for prolonged litigation.
• Stresses the need to compensate respondents for enduring lengthy legal proceedings.