CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that respondents No. 1 to 4 filed application u/S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore who accepted the application and price of the acquired land was assessed to the tune of Rs.
1550/- per marla of the categories of the land which is not proved on file on behalf of respondents vide judgment dated 31.7.1993. It appears that the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore dated 31.7.1993 remains in the field as the same was not set aside by any higher Court. Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed an execution application on 5.6.1994; during the pendency of aforesaid- execution proceedings, respondent No. 6 has paid Rs. 21 lac to respondents No. 1 to 4 but respondent number 6 did not pay interest to them which was demanded by respondents 1 to 4 amounting to Rs. 30 lac.
The Trial Court frozen account No. 12 of the same was modified on the application of Jave Enterprises on 1.3.1999; thereafter the Trial Court again frozen the aforesaid account vide order dated 26.7.1999. The petitioner filed application for modification of the order dated 26.7.1999 but the same was dismissed by Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 23.9.1999; hence the present revision petition.
2. Petitioner's counsel states that respondents No. 1 to 4 have only claimed amounting to Rs. 30 lac, against respondent No. 6 therefore, learned S.C.J. Dismissed the application of the petitioner without any justification and without applying mind.
3. Notice was issued to respondents No. 5 and 6; respondent No. 5 did not enter appearance inspite of service, therefore, he is proceeded ex parte. The representative of respondent No. 6 entered appearance alongwith leaned Law Officer; he admitted that claim of respondents No. 1 to 4 is amounting to Rs. 30 lac.
4. In view of these circumstances, the orders of the Trial Court are modified and it is ordered that Rs. 30 lac or amount due of respondents No. 1 to 4 be attached in Account Head No. 12 and the remaining amount in the Head would stand released. The petitioner is within his right to file an application for release of his amount before respondent No. 6 who is of course duty bound to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid observation this petition is disposed of.