1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 7-7-1972, whereby the Review Application (No. 2 of 1967) filed by Lal Din respondent No. 1, was accepted and the operative portion in the concluding paragraph of the judgment and decree passed by the same learned Judge in his favour on 14-3- 1966 in Regular Second Appeal (No. 134 of 1957) was altered.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Muhammad Din and Allah Ditta, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, sold the land in dispute by a registered sale deed dated 21.6-1964 in favour of Allah Ditta and Muhammad Bashir, appellants Nos. 1 and 3. Lal Din, respondent No. 1, as the collateral of vendors and being co-sharer filed a suit for possession of the land by pre--emption which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge II Class, Pasrur by his judgment dated 31-1-1956 on the ground that it was collusive and had been filed for the benefit of Ghiragh Din and Abdul Ghafoor. The appeal filed by Lal Din, respondent No. 1, was also dismissed by order dated 9-1-1967 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot. He then filed Regular Second Appeal No. 134 of 1957, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 14-3-1966 and the suit was decreed subject to his depositing the sum of Rs. 2,000 as pre--emption money on or before 1-7-1966. Thus a period of about 31 months were given for depositing the pre-emption money. The said respondent applied for the copies of the judgment and decree-sheet on 24th March, 1966. The copies were prepared by the office on the 22nd of December, 1966 and delivered on the 2nd January, 1967. The last date for depositing the pre--emption amount via. 1-7-1966 had by then expired. He, therefore, moved an application for review on 7-1-1967 praying that the judgment and decree may be amended or varied to the extent that further period of three months be granted for depositing the money and mode of payment may also be specified as the order requiring the deposit of Rs. 2,000 did not give him credit for Rs. 400 which he had already deposited on 1-2-1955 as 1/5th of the pre- emption money and that after the deduction of the said sum further deposit should have been required to the extent of Rs. 1,600 only. The ground given for acceptance of this prayer was that he came to know about the amount and date for deposit only on perusal of the copies of the judgment and decree which were delivered to him on 2-1-1967.
3. The learned Judge in. The High Court accepted the review application observing that in contravention of rule 1 of Part C of Chapter II, Volume I of the High Court Rules and Orders, the decree-sheet was not prepared on the date the decree was passed i.e. 14-3-1966 as required by the said Rule; instead the decree was prepared on 7-12-1966. It was further observed that rule 14 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the decree shall specify a date on or before which the purchase money shall be paid and the Rules also provide that "it is the duty of the decree-bolder to secure a copy of the decree and comply with its conditions". In this case respondent No. 1 had applied for a copy of the decree in time (24th March, 1966) but the same was prepared on 7-12-1966 and its copy delivered to the respondent on the 2nd January, 1967. The respondent, therefore, was not at fault, if he failed to comply with the order of the Court dated 14-3- 1966 which directed that the pre-emption money should be paid on or before 1-7-1966. Hence the time for depositing it was fixed for 1-9-1972 by altering the earlier date of 1-7-1966 by the order passed in the review petition, which was passed on 7-7-1972. Thus, a period of about two months were allowed to respondent No. 1 to make the deposit.
4. Leave was granted in this case to consider whether the grounds on which the earlier order dated 14-3-1966 was reviewed were legal grounds on which review could be granted.
5. Ch. Amjad Khan, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no mistake in the order of the Court directing the respondent No. 1 to deposit the pre-emption amount by 1-7-1966 and the error, if any, was with respect to the amount to be deposited. The Court could, in the exercise of its review jurisdiction, correct any error in that behalf, but could not change the date by which the amount was to be deposited.
6. As regards the question that in so far as the decree-sheet itself had not been prepared by 1-7-1966 and was prepared sometimes in December, 1966 long after the date fixed for making the deposit and, therefore, it was not possible for the respondent to comply with the terms of the decree, the learned counsel submitted that the remedy of the respondent lay in filing an application under section 152, C. P. C. For extension of time in making the deposit.
7. We observe from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the respondents' application was filed under Order XLVII, rules 1, 4, 5 and 8 as well as under sections 151 and 152, C. P. C. Thus, even on the learned counsel's own submission the Court could, in the circumstances noticed above, have altered the date for the deposit of the pre-emption amount and the mere fact that the learned Single Judge ha observed that "the review petition is accepted", would not invalidate the impugned order, if the same was sustainable on another provision of the law.
8. Indeed, we feel that if relief was not granted in this case the respondent would have been made to suffer for the fault of the officials of the Court in not preparing the decree in time and supplying its copy to the respon--dent No. 1 before 1-7-1966. It is now well settled that no party shall suffer for the fault of the Court. Learned counsel was unable to point out any rule or law which required the successful pre-emptor to deposit the pre--emption amount even before the decree was prepared and he could be penalised for not complying with the direction of the Court, which may have been orally given, while announcing the judgment in the case. In these circumstances, the respondent No. 1 was justified in waiting for the copy of the decree on the terms of which he was required to comply with and for which copy he bad applied promptly. If the copy was supplied after the date prescribed for making the deposit had already expired and it was impossible to comply with its terms and this result was brought about by the negligence or mistake of an agency of this Court, this error could be corrected even in exercise of the review jurisdiction.
9. The argument that although the Court could, in exercise of the review jurisdiction, correct the ambiguity contained in the direction with regard to the amount to be deposited by the respondent but could not proceed further to pass the necessary and incidental orders with a view to seeing that the correction made could fruitfully be complied with, is altogether too artificial to be accepted.
10. We, therefore, find no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.