1. ' A piece of agricultural land measuring 96 Kanals 12 Marlas was given by the petitioner to the respondent on lease in the year 1966 for a period of 5 years. The lease period commenced w.e.f. 15- 6-1966. According to the learned counsel, after completion of the lease period, physical possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner by the respondent in the year 1971. However, the respondent-lessee did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the land was voluntarily given in possession of the petitioner. He, therefore, moved an application under paragraph 25 of MLR 115. The learned Assistant Collector Grade I, Sialkot, accepted the application of the respondent thereby directing that the possession of the land in question would be handed over to him by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the vires of the aforesaid order by filing this petition before this Court. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and status quo with regard to possession of the petitioner was maintained by this Court on 3-7-1973. Despite repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the contesting respondent No,1 Ghulam Hussain. The name of contesting respondent and that of his learned counsel, Mr. Sana Ullah Bajwa, are mentioned in the daily cause list. Respondent No,2, Tehsildar is represented by Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General. The pleadings of the parties show that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question. The limited dispute between the parties was as to whether the possession of the land was given by the lessee to the lessor in accordance with law. The fact, however, remains that the lease period was for a term of five years which ended in the year 1971. This being so, it cannot successfully be argued on behalf of the respondent that at such a late stage, he would be entitled to the restoration of the possession of the land in dispute. Absence of the contesting respondent also demonstrates that he is no more interested in the restoration of the possession of the land to him. The respondent No,1, therefore, is proceeded against ex parte. In consequence, the impugned order, dated 26-6-1973 is hereby set aside by accepting this petition with no order as to costs.