1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This Petition for leave ,to appeal is directed against the order dated 1-4- 1979 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the stay order earlier passed by the High Court on 3-7-1977 while admitting Writ Petition No. 1053 of 1971: to a regular hearing was vacated.
2. The petitioners had filed a writ petition (W. P: No. 1053 of 1977) against the Thal Development Authority and some others challenging the resumption of land and as a measure of interim relief had prayed that their possession over it be not disturbed. This petition was admitted to a regular hearing on 3-7-1977 and with respect to the prayer for interim relief it was directed that the petitioners would furnish security to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2 (Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Leiah) for the payment of the mesne profits of the land sought to be resumed in cast of failure of the petition. The security was ordered to be furnished within one month. The petitioners instead of furnishing the security filed an affidavit before the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer to the effect that in case of an adverse decision of the writ petition they will make over the produce etc. To the Thal Development Authority.
3. In so far as the petitioners had pot furnished the requisite security within the stipulated period the contesting respondents submitted an application for vacation of the stay (C. M. 1 of 1979 in W. P. No. 1053 of 1971). It was pointed out that the order of the Court had not been complied with inasmuch as the stay order provided
(a) furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the E. A. C. O. And not an affidavit, and
(b) the security required to be furnished was for the payment of mesne profits to the contesting respondents.
4. The petitioners, in reply, submitted that their attorney had made an application to the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer for acceptance of the security. In pursuance thereof the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer issued a dasti parwana to the Patwari Halqa directing him to appear with the record on 19th July 1977. However, since the Patwari was available at Leiah, the petitioners' attorney 1caused his appearance before the E. A. C. O. There. After hearing him, the E. A. C. O. Asked the petitioners to file an affidavit and the same was filed. There was no intention of violating the order of the Court and the non-compliance, if any, had occurred on account of the misapprehension by the attorney of the terms of the order of the E. A. C. U. It was also submitted that trite petitioners were even now prepared to furnish to the security in terms of the Court's order dated 3-7-1970 and the delay may be condoned. , This matter came up for hearing before the same learned Judge' who had granted the stay order.
5. The learned Judge found that the earlier order passed on 3-7-1977 had not been complied with. On the point of misconception it was observed that there could be no misunderstanding on the part of the petitioners since they were represented before the Court an the stay order was ' granted on a condition which was quite unambiguous. Since the condition on which the stay order was granted had not been complied with, it was clarified that there was no order subsisting in favour of the petitioners, Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi in support of this petition, has submitted that the E. A. C. O. Was designated by the High Court for accepting the security. The said officer himself had asked the petitioners to furnish the security in the manner, stated above, namely in the form of an affidavit.
7. The petitioners should not, therefore, be made to suffer for the aforesaid act of the said authority. In any case they were prepared to remove the defect and to file a proper security bond. In essence it was further submitted, there was no difference between a security bond and the affidavit filed.
8. However, to avoid any objection they should have been allowed to submit the security bond and the delay condoned.
9. It is admitted before us that the order of the learned Judge was not complied with in accordance with its terms. The submission that the E. A. C. O. Had allowed the petitioners to file an affidavit instead of the security bond cannot be given any weight because the order of the High Court was quite unambiguous and a security bond for the mesne profits ha to be furnished and not simply an affidavit containing some undertaking. The petitioners cannot be allowed to shift the blame for the non-compliance of the order on to the shoulders of the E. A. C. O. As the order of the Court was quite unambiguous and passed in their presence. So far as the question of condoning the delay and allowing the security bond to be filed even no is concerned. It was for the High Court to consider whether the non compliance could be condoned or not. This being purely discretionary, the Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the Hilt Court in no condoning the non- compliance. No ground for interference is made out the petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.