' The facts as alleged in the petition have been noted in rny order dated 20th of February, 1980. By that order I had called for report and parawise comments from respondent No, 5 so as to reach this Court within three weeks. Despite three weeks having elapsed report and parawise comments have not been submitted,
2. Raja Muhammad Younas Advocate moved an application on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 controverting the factual allegation contained in the writ petition.
3. Be it as it may, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submits that he has instructions to state on behalf of the respondents that they will not approach the Martial Law Authorities for the satisfaction of their claims or the redress of their grievances and that if so advised they will assert their claims and grievances before the Courts of ordinary jurisdiction.
4. In view of the statement, the petition directed as it is mainly against the interference on the part of Martial Law Administration a Vehari, has borne fruit. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 will not interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 3. With these observations the petition stands disposed of.
Order accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.