2009 PLP 822 (CLC)

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

We propose to dispose of these 1st Appeals Nos.C.F.A. 10 of 2006 and C.F.A. 11 of 2006 through this single judgment as both the appeals have arisen out of single judgment, dated 8-7-2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gilgit and having same issues of law and facts. The brief facts unfolded from the record are as such that, the respondents served the appellants as employee of the same but they entered into a diversity when the respondents reached to the age of their pension from services as the appellants refused to pay pension benefits to the respondents considering their job not to be a permanent one and pensionable. The respondents filed Suit No.138 of 2001 before the Civil Court, Gilgit being dissatisfied from the plea taken by the appellant to refuse their right of pension benefits and a long standing litigation ensued which consumed more than one decade of time and parties went through the agony of monetory loss and time in travelling from Civil Court to Chief Court and back to the Civ4l Court from Chief Court. Lastly the respondents succeeded to get the decree dated (sic) against the appellants but since the decree was of declaratory nature as such, the respondents felt the same to be non-executable in the eyes of law, hence they approached to the executing Court having resort to the section 47, subsection (2) of C.P.C. with the contention to treat the execution application to be suit. The learned executing Court treated the application as suit and passed the impugned decree in favour of the respondents against the appellants after adopting the procedure provided for, and passed the impugned decree which is impugned before this Court. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appeals are based on various grounds of attacks but the learned counsel frankly abandoned the all, but objected on the point of interest imposed on the appellant by the District Judge, Gilgit with the contention that the appellants are ready to pay the pension amount to the respondents but imposition of interest upon the same is illegal and without jurisdiction as the learned District Judge had taken cognizance of the matter as Appellate Court in execution proceedings, hence he could not travel beyond the decree passed but he has exercised a jurisdiction not vested with him. We looked into the point and asked the learned counsel for the respondents to meet the same. who vehemently rebutted the point and stated that the interest has not been imposed by any executing Court or Appellate Court in execution proceedings but has been fixed in general jurisdiction and he confronted the learned counsel for appellants from the record of the case and the learned counsel for the appellants after going through the record very honourably conceded the version of the counsel for the respondents to be correct, otherwise too, the contention of the appellants seems not to be judicious that after a long time of litigation, they show their willingness to pay the pension amount alone while with the passage of time the value of currency of the country has been devalued to the extreme point of its, decreasing, hence the version is against equity and natural justice as such discarded. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned decree passed by the learned Trial/Executing Court is maintained without any variation in it by dismissing both the appeals in hand. Cost to follow the event. File. H.B.T./5/Glt. Appeals dismissed.