MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.--- This order intends to dispose of the above captioned revision petitions as such these admit common question of law and facts.
2. Through these revision petitions filed under Section 115, CPC, the petitioners have called in question the legality of impugned judgments dated 27.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby the appeals arising from orders dated 10.9.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan were dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these revision petitions are that the respondent Haji Abdul Ghafoor on 8.12.1996 moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Civil Judge, Multan which was allowed in his favour. A separate application was filed by him for drawing a decree sheet was also disposed of in his favour on 1.0.9.2003. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan who on 27.12.2003 dismissed the same and passed the impugned judgments, hence these revision petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court are against law and facts; that the learned Appellate Court was not justified while dismissing the appeals of the petitioners, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6.. It evinces from record that the respondent on 8.12.1996 made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which was decided in his favour. It has also come on the record that the Arbitrator submitted the award before the learned Trial Court on 16.5.2000 when none of the parties raised any objection and the same was made as a rule of the Court subject to law of registration. Subsequently the respondent moved execution petition on 16.4.2003 which was accepted by the learned . Trial Court on 16.7.2003.
Although the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Executing Court cannot extend time specified by the learned Trial Court in the final order, yet the fact remains that the petitioners had not challenged the decree dated 16.7.2003 but in fact had challenged the decree sheet dated 10.9.2003 which was drawn by the learned Trial Court on 16.7.2003, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any legal force that the order of the learned Trial Court on the application of the respondent was time-barred.
7. In view of the above discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioners has miserably failed to, point out any, illegality or irregularity committed, by the learned -Trial Court by way of passing the impugned judgment and decree. More over there are concurrent, findings of facts of both the lower Courts which calls for no interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, I. Find no substance in these revision petitions, which are hereby dismissed.