QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J:- Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Advocate (respondent) retired from Pakistan Air Force as Squadron Leader, but during service sustained injuries to his back bone in the aircraft which were declared attributable to the war service of Pakistan Air Force by the then Commander- in-Chief (C-in-C) with less than 20% degree of disability. He was retained in the GD (P) Branch, carrying higher emoluments and more favourable pension formula. In the year 1966, the respondent was diagnosed having disease of 'Cardiac Ischemia', resulting in his permanent grounding in November, 1966; and, on a fresh contract was assigned to GD (Admin Branch) having its own terms and conditions of service different from those of GD(P) Branch. The respondent eventually retired on 26.12.1973; and, ultimately, his total disability was fixed as 30%, but his claim for disability pension was rejected vide order dated 08.11.1975. His appeal also met the same fate. His writ petition for disability pension was not entertained by the High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the matter, together with his Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal, which was declined for the same reason; and after remaining unsuccessful to get orders of the apex Court reviewed, the respondent lodged suit for (a) declaration, (b) mandatory injunction and (c) recovery of Rs.24,000/- as damages.
2. In the backdrop of above stated circumstances, narrated in the plaint of the respondent in the civil suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, vide his judgment / order dated 29.07.92, granted decree, as prayed for, in favour of the respondent against the Chief of Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force, Air Headquarters, Chaklala / Islamabad (petitioner No.1) and Federation of Pakistan, through the Secretary General, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Defence Secretariat, Rawalpindi (petitioner No.2). The record would show that appeal lodged by the petitioners against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed, but the revision petition was partially allowed, and to the extent of relief 'C' suit was dismissed, while the impugned judgments and decrees in respect of reliefs 'A' and 'B' were upheld vide judgment / order dated 02.06.1996. Both the parties preferred appeals to the apex Court, and vide judgment dated 30.04.2003, appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on merits, while appeal of the respondent was dismissed as not pressed.
3. In other words, the respondent was held entitled to disability pension with 30% total disability and with mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to release and pay the disability pension due to the plaintiff for 30% total disability with effect from 26.12.1973 for life time alongwith bank rate of interest on the arrears of pension and the cost. The respondent initiated execution proceedings through his application for payment of the decretal amount of Rs.179,102/- from 26.12.1973 to 26.12.1992 with further directions to the petitioners / judgment debtors to regularly pay for life time disability pension at the rate of Rs.240/- PM with effect from 26.12.1992 onwards. An application for dismissal of application for execution was moved in the execution proceedings by the petitioners wherein claim of the respondent for interest was specifically assailed with the assertion that decree in favour of the respondent stood executed. This application was moved on 07.02.2004, followed by applications dated 23.04.2004, 04.05.2004 and 20.05.2004 wherein payment of the amount on the basis of 'Goshwara' dated 02.10.2003 was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the amount of Rs.162,337.82 had already been paid to the respondent / decree holder, whereas, according to the petitioners/ judgment debtors, there was no decree for payment of interest on the principal decretal amount. The two main applications were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad vide order dated 21.04.2004, mainly, on the grounds that the petitioners / judgment debtors had raised no objection regarding the table of calculation submitted by the decree holder / respondent and further that issue No.12 pertaining to entitlement of the respondent /plaintiff for mandatory injunction with interest on the arrears of pension was decided in the affirmative. The learned Civil Judge arrived at the conclusion that the table of calculation submitted by the decree holder / respondent alongwith execution petition, not objected to by the judgment debtors / petitioners, in the circumstances, would be deemed as admitted. The order of the learned Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad dated 21.04.2004 was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Court which was dismissed in limine by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Abbottabad vide judgment / order dated 14.05.2004. In the revision petition moved by the petitioners against the aforementioned judgments / orders of the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners, inter alia, raised the following questions:- "a) Whether the decree for the interest has been granted? b) What amount of interest has been fixed, against which amount, and from which time? c) Under Section 34 of CPC, what amount and from which date could be treated as the basis for the assessm ent of interest? d) Whether the Goshwara showing sum of Rs.2324331/- is correct as per decree passed by the Court? e) Whether there is any decree for the grant of compound interest by the Court?"
The Honourable Judge of this Court dealt with all the questions raised in the revision petition and dismissed the revision petition being 'misconceived' vide order dated 29.10.2007. It may be added here that it was clearly held in the said judgment that though having 'official information' and 'abundant human resources' for proper calculation of interest on the basis of bank rate and interest prevailing since 1973 onwards, Defendants/petitioners have no solid response to the claim of the plaintiff/respondent, with further observation by the Honourable Judge that 'if the petitioners considered calculation submitted by the respondent/petitioner incorrect, they could have justified their objection with a counter schedule of payable amount, but in the absence of such counter schedule of payable amount, one has to believe that the judgment debtor / petitioner merely intends to prolong the agony of the decree holder by raising unnecessary objections and for delaying the process without any substantial justification.' The aforesaid judgment / order of this Court should have sealed fate of the case but, instead, a new series of applications was unleashed on 21.11.2007, 10.12.2007 and 18.12.2007. Anyhow, the applications were rejected by the learned Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad on 02.04.2008. The petitioners, still dissatisfied with the order of learned Executing Court / Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad, preferred appeal which also ended in fiasco, vide order of the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Abbottabad dated 26.11.2009, hence this revision petition against the order of the learned Appellate Court.
4. The respondent filed objection petition (No.152/2010) wherein objections were raised with regard to maintainability of the revision petition and also jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such like petition. While treating the aforementioned objections as preliminary objections, arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and that of the respondent in person were heard, and record perused.
5. In essence, the main question which falls for determination is that whether after judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2007 in Civil Revision No.99 of 2004, the present revision petition is maintainable and this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain such like revision petition. In order to resolve the issue, it has to be seen whether the questions raised in the applications subsequent to the judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2007 were already raised and adjudicated upon so as to attract the application of principle of resjudicata or for that matter constructive resjudicata. The answer is in the affirmative, to say the least, as would be seen from the questions raised in CR No.99 of 2004 and reproduced above. Having said that, the next question would be whether the judgment dated 29.10.2007 has attained finality, and the issues being sought to be raised through the instant revision petition cannot be reopened.The answer again is in the affirmative, as neither appeal nor review was lodged against the said judgment of this Court, which is still intact and binding on the parties. Once it is held that all issues raised herein stand finally decided, and cannot be reopened under the principle of resjudicata or constructive resjudicata, as the case may be, one cannot differ with the contention of respondent, drawing unequivocal support from the judgments reported as PLD 1987 SC 145, 2001 M LD 1462, 1999 sCMR 1633, 2004 CLC 1633, 2006 M LD 1730, 2002 SCM R 122, 1984 SCM R 689, 1990 CLC 1208, 1999 SCMR 2883, 2000 SCMR 431 and 2003 CLC 857.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners objected to first taking up the objection petition of the respondent, answer to which has been provided in the judgment reported as PLD 1966 (WP) Peshawar 34, envisaging decision on the question of jurisdiction of the Court before proceeding one step further in case. The learned counsel stressed that relief of interest is no longer available to the respondent in view of judgments against 'interest', but he had no answer when his attention was drawn to the existence of provision in respect of interest in section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel vehemently assailed the 'Goshwara' (table of calculation), made basis in the execution proceedings, on the ground that the same was provided by the respondent, without the same being furnished on the orders of the executing Court. This objection of the learned counsel is also not tenable in view of the fact that no objection with regard to admissibility of the said 'Goshwara' was ever raised, at any stage, by the petitioners, who submitted their own 'Goshwara' on 22.05.2004, after the learned executing Court /Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad had already rendered decision on their objections to the 'Goshwara' submitted by respondent on 21.04.2004. The objection of the learned counsel with regard to payment of amount of Rs.2,324,831.42 to the respondent, even exceeding the amount of Rs.179,102/- prayed for by the respondent in his execution petition, and further calculation of the disability pension and interest thereon beyond 26.12.1992, the last date mentioned in the execution petition, is also without force for the simple reason that the respondent has been held entitled to 30% disability pension with effect from 26.12.73 for life time alongwith bank rate of interest on the arrears of pension. In other words, entitlement of the respondent to such payment cannot be disputed on any ground whatsoever, as long as the disability pension remains unpaid. Needless to say that there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent is receiving disability pension in addition to earned pension.
7. In short, having lost the opportunity to challenge the final verdict of this Court in respect of the issues raised herein in the instant revision petition, the same issues cannot be reopened after judgment of this Court in respect thereof attained finality. The revision petition is, therefore, neither maintainable, nor the petitioners have got locusstandi to file this revision petition. Consequently, the objection petition/preliminary objection is sustained and the revision petition is dismissed with costs.