ISLAMABAD, April 14: The Supreme Court has ruled that a citizen could not be punished for an act or error on the part of the court as he could not be blamed for a defective or erroneous order passed by a trial court. The ruling by the highest court was pronounced in a case, titled Mian Mohammad Talha Adil versus Mian Mohammad Lutfi here last week.

Justice Rana Bhagwandas, who authored the judgment, held that a citizen could not be punished for an act or error committed by a court of law. "No person shall suffer for the act or omission of the court and the act of the court shall not prejudice anyone."

The other two members of the bench were Justice Hamid Ali Mirza and Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan. The issue had arisen in a case in which the plaintiff had deposited one-third amount in the form of Defence Saving Certificates though it was not permitted under the law.

The court held that a citizen could be punished for his failure to comply with the order of the court but not otherwise. The counsel for the respondent had argued that Defence Saving Certificates were purchased in the name of court with its approval and the suit could not be dismissed on the plea that the legal requirement of depositing one-third amount was not fulfilled, the DSC were as good as a sum in cash.

The SC held that there could be no cavil with the proposition that the object of section 24 of the Punjab Preemption Act 1991 was to ascertain the capacity of the intending preemptor to purchase the property sought to be preempted and to secure advance payment to the extent of one-third of the sale price with a view to ensuring the payment of the balance consideration in the event of a decree in his suit.

The SC ruled that irrespective of the circumstances that the trial court was ill-advised to pass an order permitted the respondent to purchase the Defence Saving Certificates and place it on record, the fact remained that the respondents had complied with the order of the of the court and placed the DSC on the record of the court and could neither be held guilty of wilful default nor non-compliance of the order of the court.