1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 7-10-1989, whereby FA.O. Of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioners herein were contractors who were awarded the contract of civil work of construction of the State Bank of Pakistan building on Shahrah-eQuaid-e-Azam, Lahore. As the petitioners could not complete the construction work in the stipulated period but on their request they were granted extension for completion of their work. They have also made a request for some cash payment to be made to them by the respondent which was not acceded to. As for some reasons the petitioner could not carry out the contract hence the respondents filed a suit for the recovery, as per condition of contract, made the contractors liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs,2,85,59,842.11 as damages for the unfinished work, also moved an application against the petitioners to be restrained from selling the tools, plants and machinery etc., each worth Rs,30,000.00 without the prior permission of the Court. The said application was allowed by the trial Court on 3-7-1979 and an interim injunction was granted to the respondents that the petitioners would not dispose of their above-mentioned property without the prior permission of the Court, till the final decision of the suit. An appeal was preferred before the High Court by the petitioners and the same was dismissed in limine by the High Court vide its order dated 7-10-1989. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property on which the embargo is imposed by the trial Court was not the subject-matter of the suit. We find that there is no check on the petitioners to use and have full control over the tools, plants and machinery and if it becomes unserviceable, we think that the Court on the request of the petitioners will allow them to dispose it of, with a view to ensuring the payment of the amount due to the respondents in case of the success of the suit, and thus, the Court can take any step in this regard though the property on which the restraint so made was not the subject-matter of the suit.
4. ' Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly acted in its inherent powers under section 151, of the C.P.C. And rightly affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Thus, we find no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly dismissed.