' The land in dispute was sold in favour of the appellants, by means of a registered sale-deed, dated 29th June, 1967 for a consideration of Rs, 22,000. Two suits were brought to pre-empt this sale ; one by Bahadur and others, which was registered under No, 352/1 of 1967 and the other by Ghulam Muhammad respondents. This suit bears No, 351/1 of 1967. The trial Court consolidated both the suits and on 9th April, 1973 passed a decree in favour of the pre-emptors, subject to the payment of Rs, 22,000 as sale price and Rs, 7,000 on account of improvements. The appellants challenged this decree through an appeal which was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 4th September, 1974. They have now come to this Court in second appeal.
2. It appears that at the time of the institution of the suits, one of the appellant was a minor. He was not sued through a next friend but an application under Order XXXII, rule 3, C.P.0 for appointment of a guardian ad litem, was moved after the expiry of period of limitation. As per admitting note, dated 10th October, 1974 the appeal was entertained to examine the sole point as to whether or not, on account of the respondents, failure, to implead the minor, through the guardian ad litem, for a considerable long time, the suit had become barred by time.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has frankly conceded that in during the interragnum this point stands settled by two judgments, one delivered by this Court and other rendered by the Supreme Court, as reported Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sarwar (1) and Muhammad Ismail etc. v. Muhammad Sarwar etc. (2) respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, raised another contention. He submits that in the year 1972 during the pendency of the litigation, the currency was devalued by the Government of Pakistan, and on 27th March, 1973 they moved an application before the learned trial Court praying for the payment of the sale price and the value of the improvements, at the enhance rate, proportionate to the devaluation of the currency. The claim made in the application copy whereof is placed, before me by the learned counsel, from his brief, has been reiterated and it is submitted that as the appellants are not at fault they cannot be burdened with consequences flowing from the devaluation.
5. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that they brought the suit in the year 1968, devaluation was made by the Government, and delay if any, in deciding the suit occasioned by the Court. The respondents cannot be made to suffer for act of the State or for that matter of the Court which disposed of the suit late.
6. I find much force in the submissions of the respondent's learned counsel. It is correct that the appellants moved the application aforesaid before the learned trial Court, which seemingly, remained unattended. However, the fact remains that the written statement was never got amended by the appellants and accordingly, no issue in respect of their aforesaid claim was framed. So far as the respondents are concerned, it is not disputed that they deposited in the Court the sale price and so also the assessed value of the improvements way back in the year 1973, in accordance with the decree of the trial Court. It is on the record that the village where the land in dispute is situated during the pendency of this litigation went under consolidation. In reply to a question put to the learned counsel for the appellants as to who is in possession of the post- consolidation land, he is unable to refute the respondents' contention that the land remained in possession of the appellants. He however came forth with the submission that even if the appellants are in possession, the respondents having obtained "Dakeel Malkana" their possession would be deemed to be in the capacity of tenants.
7. It is discernible from the order, dated 10th October, 1974 made on C.M. 3247/C-74 that for protection of the appellants' possession. Status quo was ordered to be maintained, subject to the furnishing of security by them. This would lend supports to the stand taken by the learned counsel
(1) PLD 1978 Lab, 1461 (2) 1980SC M R. 254 ' for the respondents. If the appellants remained in possession and made use of the land in dispute they cannot make out any legitimate grievance, for non-payment of the sale price etc. During that period, much less to ask for payment at the enhanced rate. Neither the Punjab Pre-emption Act caters for any such claim nor the learned counsel for the appellants has laid hand on any other Statute, entitling the vendees to the payment of compensation, due C to the devaluation of the currency. In any case, the disposal of the suit took fairly long time and there is no good reason to deviate from the age old principle that no one can be prejudiced by the act of the Court. Upon the facts of the case I am unable to entertain the appellants' request for modification of the impugned decree allowing them the payment at the enhanced rate. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.