1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, direct appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of Lahore High Court passed in R.S.A. No, 130 of 1987 on 15-6-1992.
2. ' The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant instituted a preemption suit 'in respect of land measuring 215-3/4 Kanals on the ground of being co-owner in the 'Khata' as well as owner in the estate. In the suit instituted by the appellant, there were 9 vendees/defendants who had jointly purchased the pre-empted land in equal shares. The trial Court though found that the appellant had superior right of pre-emption, but rejected the plaint by judgment dated 16-3-1982, on the ground of non-payment of requisite court-fee. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by the first appellate Court on 12-7-1987 and suit was decreed in favour of appellant. Out of 9 vendees/defendants only 6 challenged the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in R.S.A. No,130 of 1987 but during pendency of second appeal before the High Court 3 appellants (vendees) confessed judgment leaving in the filed only 3 appellants who are now respondents in the present appeal. The learned Judge in Chambers set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court on 12-7-1987 to the extent of the share of 3 respondents who were appellants before the High Court on the ground that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), the Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of pre-emption after 31-7-1986. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court on 16-3-1982 was on account of erroneous view taken by the trial Court which was set aside by the first appellate Court on 12-7-1987. Therefore, the suit of the appellant should be deemed to have ben decreed on 16-3-1982 when the suit was wrongly dismissed by the trial Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is well-settled principle of law that no person should suffer on account of mistake of the Court and as the suit of the appellant was wrongly dismissed by the trial Court, the appellant should not be made to suffer for the mistaken view of the trial Court. The learned counsel in support of this contention has relied on the case of Hakim Ali and another v.
3. Iftikhar Ahmed Khan (1990 SCM R 1571). In the above cited case, the trial Court while decreeing the suit of pre-emption directed the plaintiff to pay balance of decretal amount by 30-11-1983. The plaintiff appealed against the order of the trial Court and applied for suspension of the order of deposit made by the trial Court. The first appellate Court instead of deciding the application before 30-11-1983 on the request of decree-holder allowed him to make the deposit by 5-12-1983. The decree-holder did not make the deposit by 5-12-1983. On hearing the appeal, the first appellate Court enhanced the decretal amount and also directed payment of further amount on account of improvements made in the property. The contention of the defendant in that case that the failure to deposit the earlier decrelal amount directed by the trial Court resulted in the automatic dismissal of the suit was not accepted by the first appellate Court and the High Court also refused to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. Leave was refused by this Court in the above case on the ground that the default in the deposit of the decretal amount by the decree-holder was not attributable solely to the decree-holder but it was partly due to the reason that the first appellate Court failed to dispose of the application for suspension of the order of trial Court directing deposit of the decretal amount. Applying the principle that no person should suffer for the act of the Court, the orders of the lower. Courts were upheld by this Court.
4. In the case before us, however, there was neither any omission nor failure on the part of trial Court to pass an order which it was required by law to pass and which resulted in some injury or prejudice to the appellant. The principle that no person should suffer for the act of the Court does not apply to an erroneous decision of a Court on questions of law or fact. The fact that the trial Court took a view in the case which was found to be erroneous by the appellate Court, could not be equated with the act of the Court which may cause or result in an injury to a party in the case. In order to bring a case within the principle that no person should suffer from the act of a Court, it must be shown that the Court was required by law to follow a particular course or to pass an order, which it omitted to do and such failure or omission on the part of the Court caused some injury or disadvantage to one of the parties to the litigation. If a Court takes a wrong view of law or fact and decides the case on such assumption, the error in the judgment can only be corrected through process of appeal, review or revision prescribed by law. Correction of such errors in the judgment of Court by the appellate by revisional Court cannot give rise to the arguments that the aggrieved party should be compensated on the principle that no person should suffer for the act of the Court.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court as it was found to be based on an erroneous view of law, therefore, the suit shall be deemed to have been decreed on the date the trial A Court dismissed the suit, is neither supported by any express provision of law nor by any precedence. The appellant in this case has suffered on account of decision of this Court in the. Case of Said Kamal Shah (supra).
6. Therefore, the principle that no person should suffer on account of the act of a Court is not attracted in the present case. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, we will make no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.