' Muhammad Ali, predecessor-in-interest of Mulazim Hussain and four others, respondents, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 39 Kanals and 9 Marlas situate in Village Alamdi Soora, Teshil Multan, against Noor Muhammad, petitioner, before Senior Civil Judge, Multan. The suit was dismissed on 5-11-1972. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad All filed an appeal which was dismissed on 19-10-1976. Mulazim Hussain and others, petitioners, the successor-in-interest of Muhammad Ali, filed regular second appeal No, 818/76 against the judgment and decree dated 19-10-1976 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Multan. On 27-10-1976, the High Court admitted the appeal to regular hearing and granted status quo order subject to the appellant's furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. On this, the trial Court directed Muhammad Ali appellant to furnish security in the sum of Rs,6,000, which was furnished by him within time. Status quo order was confirmed by this Court on 28-11-1978 and it was stated in that order that "status quo was ordered to be maintained subject to furnishing security. This direction reportedly had been complied with, the stay order is confirmed and the Civil Misc. Is disposed of Regular Second Appeal No,881/76, in which this status quo order was passed, was ultimately dismissed on 5-12-1984. On this Noor Muhammad, defendant/respondent/petitioner moved an application before the trial Court requesting that the mesne profit for a period from 27-10-1976 to 5-12-1984 may be recovered from the surety and paid to him. This application was resisted. The trial Court, vide its order dated 17-3-1986, held that the petitioner was entitled to recover Rs,6,000 from the respondents, although at the time of the hearing of the application Noor Muhammad, petitioner, had claimed Rs,1,34,735.92 in accordance with the statement of net profit for a period from 27-10-1976 to 5-12-1984. Hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to the mesne profit for a period from 27-10-1976 to 5-12-1984 amounting to Rs,1,34,735.92 and not Rs,6,000, as held by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the High Court had granted status quo order subject to security to the satisfaction of the trial Court and nothing more/nothing less. Pursuant to this order, the trial Court directed the respondents to furnish security in the sum of Rs,6,000. Haji Hameed Hussain filed the surety bond in the sum of Rs,6,000. This being the position, I feel that no exception can be taken to the impugned order, inasmuch as the trial Court could not go beyond the surety bond furnished by the respondents. The surety was to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The trial Court, in its wisdom, asked the respondents to furnish security in the sum of Rs,6,000. The petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of the execution of the surety bond or thereafter during the pendency of the regular second appeal. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order, which does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.