' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Messrs S.S. Oil Mills Ltd. Petitioner feeling aggrieved of an order of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court dated 23-2-1997 dismissing their application for temporary injunction has approached this Court through these two petitions for leave to appeal (C. Ps. 249-L and 278-L of 1997). During the course of hearing of these petitions, it transpired that the petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs,95,16,000 to the respondent-Board for purchasing Soyabean imported by the Government under PLS 480 and also handed over to the Board 90,000 empty bags for packing Soyabean value whereof is stated to be Rs,25,00,000. Claim of the petitioner in the Courts below was that the Company was entitled to receive 6000 tons of Soyabean for which according to it, an agreement had taken place between the parties. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner stated during the course of arguments that the petitioner would be satisfied if it is delivered Soyabean worth Rs,95,16,000 and would not press its claim agitated in the suit and is also ready to discharge its other liability towards the respondent Board in the mutual interest of the parties. As the offer so made appeared to be reasonable, we asked the petitioner to reduce the offer in writing which has been done in a petition under Article 187 of the Constitution read with Order XXXIII, rule 6 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 presented in Court today. Needless to observe that when the afore-referred offer was made on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board pointed out that the petitioner was also liable to pay Rs,95,68,000.00 as principal amount due from the petitioner on account of the credit limit paid to the petitioner by the Board for the purchase of Canola/sunflower seeds and that the petitioner cannot be delivered Soyabean against the amount advanced by it unless it paid the aforementioned amount of Rs,95,68,000 alongwith the mark up. This liability has been accepted by the petitioner Company which in its offer contained in the application has offered to pay the same to the Board in instalments with the undertaking that the Chief Executive of the petitioner Company shall face the consequence of disobedience of the order and of any breach of undertaking given by him We may note that with reference to the request made by the petitioner for supply of Soyabean as against the amount advanced by it, learned counsel appearing for the Board stated that cost of Soyabean would also include the amount of demmurage paid or to be paid by the Board to Port Qasim Trust, Karachi. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the demmurage if any levied by the Qasim Port Trust had been levied on account of the negligence of the Board for not taking delivery of the seeds in time and, therefore, the petitioner could not be burdened with this liability.
He, however, finally agreed that the cost of Soyabean may include 40% of the demmurage levied by and paid to the Qasim Port Trust, in respect of the quantity of the Soyabean to be delivered to the petitioner.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the overall situation prevailing in the litigation and the fact that the petitioner-Company has agreed to discharge its other liability as well without litigation and the price being paid for the Soyabean is more than the price offered in the subsequent auction and the petitioner has accepted to receive that much quantity of Soyabean as is covered by the amount already paid by it as against the allocated quantity, we are of the view that the offer incorporated in the application presented in Court reasonably serves the interest of both the parties and also brings to an end not only the present litigation but also any future litigation which will have to be undertaken to recover the amount of credit limit extended for purchase of Canola/sunflower seed. We are, therefore, pursuaded to accept this offer and the undertaking of the company and the Chief Executive of the petitioner- company given to this Court and to the respondent-Board. We accordingly accept the offer and the undertaking and convert the petition into appeal and dispose of the appeal in terms of the offer and the undertaking leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
3. Before parting with this order, we may note that the Chief Executive of the petitioner Company was made conscious of the consequences which will flow in case of breach of aforesaid undertaking. We may also note that according to petitioner, the amount paid by it covers 692 M.
Tons Soyabean (see para. 7 (iii) of the petition) while as per learned counsel for respondent-Board, the quantity of Soyabean as against the sum already paid comes to 669 M. Tons. This is a matter of calculation and the same will be checked and settled mutually by parties as per terms already settled, obviously the cost of bags and demmurage is to be excluded. Any difference on this count shall not, however, be made basis of non-compliance of the terms of the offer.
' Disposed of accordingly.