' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-12-1996 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in C.R. No.585 of 1996.
2. The facts in brief are that a summary suit for the recovery of Rs.80,000 was instituted by the respondent Said Mahmood against appellant in the Court of the District Judge. On 18-12-1995 the trial Court granted leave to defend subject to the appellant furnishing surety bond for the said amount. The appellant submitted the requisite surety bond, which was accepted on 21-1-1996. The respondent/ plaintiff moved an application seeking cancellation of the surety bond on the ground that the same was inadequate. Vide order dated 21-4-1996 the said application was allowed and the appellant was directed to submit fresh surety bond of a local surety owning urban/rural immovable property in District Rawalpindi by 19-5-1996. The order dated 21-4-1996 was assailed in C.R. No.220 of 1996 in the High Court and the same was decided on 21-5-1996 by way of compromise. Vide order dated 21-5-1996 the appellant was required to furnish requisite surety bond within one month. Thus on 7-7-1996, the District Judge decreed the suit. The said judgment and decree was assailed in the High Court by filing a Regular First Appeal (R.F.A. No.86 of 1996), but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15-8-1996. The said order was assailed in this Court in C.P.L.A. No.609 of 1996, which was heard on 2-12-1996 and the said petition was converted into appeal and the same was allowed and the case was remanded to the District Judge, Rawalpindi subject to the condition that the appellant shall furnish surety in the sum of Rs.80,000 in the form of urban property situated in Punjab by 10-12-1996 or in default thereof, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was to stand restored without any further orders.
3. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 2-12-1996, the appellant produced Abdul Ghafoor Niazi as his surety, but the property documents were found to be inadequate and thus he was not accepted as surety vide order dated 10-12-1996. The appellant thereafter produced Zafar Ali Khan with property documents to be accepted as surety, but he, too, was not accepted as surety. Subsequent thereto, one Gul Sher Khan Niazi was offered as surety and his property documents were produced, but his offer to stand surety was also rejected by the District Judge on the same date. Thereafter on 10-12-1996 one Abdul Khaliq was offered to be surety, but he was not present when the case was called on 14-12-1996 and thus the said offer was also rejected. In this background, the learned District Judge on 17-12-1996 passed an order to the effect that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 7-7-1996 stood restored. The appellant was called upon to comply with the order dated 28-1u-1996 and the decretal amount was directed to be deposited in Court by 19-12-1996. Both the said orders were assailed in C.R. No.585 of 1996, but the same was dismissed. Against the said orders leave to appeal was sought and vide orders dated 15-4-1997 leave was granted to consider as to whether the learned District Judge had rightly proceeded and rejected the sureties offered by the appellant.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, C.M. No.308 of 1997 was moved in this Court and the appellant offered to deposit Rs.25,00,000 in cash and for the balance amount of Rs.55,000 prayed that he should be allowed to furnish security by offering surety. This application was allowed vide order dated 27-5-1997 and it was ordered that the appellant would furnish security of urban immovable property worth Rs.55,000 to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court On 26-8-1997, Zafar Ali Khan came forward to stand as surety alongwith the property documents in respect of land measuring 20 Kanals 6 Marlas owned by him, which the Revenue Authorities had valued at Rs.63,15,000. The respondent had raised objections as to the valuation, but since no documentary evidence contrary to the aforesaid valuation was produced, therefore, the Additional Registrar proceeded to accept the aforesaid surety vide orders dated 26-8-1997.
5. The present appeal is confined towards the determination of the question as to whether the District Judge had rightly refused to accept the various sureties produced by the appellant. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and having gone through the orders passed, we are of the view that it was not a fit case for interference inasmuch as the learned District Judge in his discretion had passed proper orders and having found the property documents to be inadequate refused to accept the sureties offered by the appellant. No illegality has been committed in the exercise of the aforesaid discretion. The same, not being arbitrary and capricious, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. In this view of the matter, this appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.