' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 8-6-1999, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.98 of 1996.
' The facts, in brief, are that Khizar Hayat Khan petitioner was awarded a contract for collection of fee for the sale and purchase of animals in the Cattle Markets, Faisalabd, Jaranwala and Tandalianwala for the ' period commencing from 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1993 for a consideration of Rs,1,20,02,000. The agreement was reduced into writing. The petitioner deposited 10% of the said amount as advance and 2% as security. He was also required to pay the remaining amount in monthly installments along with the advance income tax and wages of the staff.
3. According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Faisalabad, restricted the movement of the cattle under section 144, Cr.P.C., on account of floods. Resultantly, the Provincial Government vide Notification dated 4-10-1992 prohibited the holding of cattle market till 31-10-1992. The petitioner could not, thus, hold the market during the said period and claimed the refund of Rs,17,31,254, which the respondent/ Zila Council declined.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent for declaration and consequential relief, praying therein that the advance installment paid for the month of October, 1992, be adjusted for the installment of March, 1993. The respondent contested the suit.
5. After framing the necessary issues and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 31-7-1993 decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner allowing him to withdraw his security amounting to Rs,17,31,254 deposited by him in the Court at the time of institution of the suit in connection with the interim relief.
6. The respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, Faisalabad, which has dismissed vide judgment dated 4-1-1996. The respondent then filed a revision in the Lahore High Court, which was partly allowed and the learned Judge in Chambers modified the decree holding the respondent (Zilla Council) entitled to withdraw 1/3rd of the said amount and the petitioner entitled to withdraw 2/3rd of the said amount deposited in the Trial Court. Operative part of the impugned judgment reads as under:-- "The ban was imposed by the Provincial Government in exercise of its power under sections 156 and 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that the prohibition was issued in public interest. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that despite the ban the petitioner did not prohibit the respondent from holding the cattle market. The bare fact that the respondent itself had to obtain the relaxation from the District Magistrate to hold the cattle fair/market negates the said contention. I have, thus, come to the conclusion that because of the ban imposed by the Provincial Government in lawful exercise of its authority, the cattle market could only be held for 10 days by the respondent. Needless to add that like the petitioner the respondent was also bound to obey and comply with the said order of the Provincial Government. It is so provided in clause 11 of the agreement Exh.P.I. "
' Hence, this petition by Khizar Hayat Khan petitioner.
2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned High Court had made a fair assessm ent of the period for which the petitioner was allowed to hold the cattle fair/ market and found him entitled to compensation for the said period. Being a question of fact, we do not feel persuaded to interfere in the matter, and in consequence dismiss the petition.