1991CLC721 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(12) & 115‑‑‑Entitlement to mesne profits‑‑‑Extent‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit as owner in possession of property in question, dismissed by Trial Court and First Appellate Court‑‑‑High Court in second appeal, granted plaintiff status quo order, subject to furnishing security which was later confirmed on furnishing of same‑‑‑Ultimately plaintiffs second appeal was dismissed whereupon defendant claimed "mesne profits" for a period during which status quo order had remained in field‑‑‑Trial Court accepted plaintiff's claim to the extent of the amount of which the security bond was executed by the plaintiff on the satisfaction of the Trial Court as ordered by High Court‑‑‑Validity of order‑‑‑High Court had granted status quo order, subject to furnishing of security to satisfaction of Trial Court and nothing more, nor less ‑‑‑ Trial Court directed plaintiffs to furnish security pursuant to High Court order in the sum of specified amount which was furnished by them ‑‑‑ Security was to be furnished to the satisfaction of Trial Court, who when passed such order, was not objected to by defendants neither at the time of execution of surety bond nor thereafter during pendency of second appeal ‑‑‑ Trial Court's order directing payment of mesne profits to the extent of specified amount did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity‑‑ Mesne profits though claimed at a very high figure were restricted to the amount secured by the security bond furnished by plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case. S.A. Hussain Shah Bokhari for Petitioner. Moeen‑ud‑Din Chaudhry for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1990. 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 Ali filed an appeal which was dismissed on 19‑10‑1976. Mulazim Hussain and others, petitioners, the successor‑in‑interest of Muhammad Ali, riled regular second appeal No. 818176 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 or'. 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 1.7‑3‑1986, 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. A.A./N‑415/L Revision dismissed.