' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 8-5- 2001 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the revision petition preferred on behalf of the Province of the Punjab through Collector, Sargodha has been dismissed and the order dated 25-6-1989 passed by learned District Judge has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that land measuring 5.15 acres bearing Block No,8, situate in Chak No,107/SB, Tehsil and District Sargodha was leased out to respondent on 31-1-1987 , for excavation of stone being successful bidder and on account of depositing a sum of Rs,4,25,000 i,e, 1/4th of the total lease money. The order in favor of respondent was issued on 7-2-1987 for a period of two years. The respondent could not honour his commitment and the first installment of lease money due on 7-8-1987 was never deposited and on the contrary a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction was filed in Civil Court, at Sargodha which was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 14-11-1987. Pursuant to said decree the respondent was directed to deposit first installment of lease money by means of order dated 14-12-1987 but in vain.
In view of the default the lease granted to the respondent was cancelled by means of order, dated 28-12-1987. The petitioner preferred a petition under Order XXI, rule 32, C.P.C. For enforcement of judgment/decree, dated 14-11-1987 which was accepted. It is worth mentioning that the grant of injunction and the maintainability of the main petition was questioned by preferring an appeal which was allowed by the learned Appellate Court on 3-1-1989 which, however, was set aside on filing of revision petition on behalf of petitioner vide judgment impugned, hence, this petition.
3. Heard Miss Yasmin Sehgal, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab on behalf of petitioners and Ch. M. Tufail, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents at length. We have also examined the entire record of the case, evidence led by the parties to substantiate their respective claims, the judgment/decree, dated 14-11-1987 and judgment impugned. It is worth mentioning that the lease was allotted initially for a period of two years and there is no denying the fact that respondent/lessee had enjoined the leased out area for more than five years w,e,f, 7-2-1987 to 29- 8-1993 by exploiting the legal provisions in spite of the fact that recovery of huge amount was due against him. In fact the respondent/lessee has obtained more period as was directed by judgment/decree, dated 14-11-1987 which was not challenged for the reasons best known to the department but the possibility of extraneous consideration cannot be ruled out. Now the learned Executing Court has directed for the implementation of judgment/decree, dated 14-11-1987 which was challenged before the learned High Court but the same has been dismissed vide judgment impugned. In fact the decree in question has already been satisfied by obtaining stay order against cancellation of lease from High Court which remained operative for about five years and no steps whatsoever were taken by the department to get it set,. Aside which speaks volumes about the conduct and connivance of the department. In such view of the matter the question of grant of further extension of lease or compensation under the garb of judgment and decree, dated 14-11-1987 does not arise which made it abundant clear that either the lease should be extended or compensation should be given. As mentioned hereinabove the respondent/lessee had already utilized the area in question for more than five years and it hardly matters as to whether possession of a small chunk from the total lease area was handed over to him or otherwise.
4. While parting with the judgment we may point out that this order would have no bearing on the question of recovery of outstanding dues against the respondents which would be decided by the appropriate forum in accordance with law and on its own merits. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court that impugned order could not be interfered with by this Court as Government of the Punjab had not challenged the judgment and decree, dated 14-11-1987 for the reasons that this Court has the fullest power to do complete justice without fettering itself with any self-imposed restrictions which are no longer necessary in the context of the changed circumstances in which it does now function. If any authority is required reference can be made to Muhammad Riaz v. Surriya Jabeen 1985 SCM R 2066.
5. In sequel to the above-mentioned discussion, we are inclined to convert this petition into appeal, which is accepted and the judgment impugned is set aside.