1. ALI BAIG, J.----Through this civil revision petition the petitioners/judgment debtors have assailed the judgment/ order dated 28/11/2017 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Skardu, whereby the Addl. District Judge Skardu has allowed the appeal of the present respondents/ decree holders by setting aside the order/judgment dated 02/10/2016 passed by the learned executing court/Civil Judge 1st class Roundu Camp at Skardu.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the present respondents/decree holders had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners/judgment debtors in the trial Court which was dismissed by the learned trial court and the respondents/decree holders had filed civil 1st appeal in the 1st appellate court/Addl. District Court Skardu which was allowed by the learned 1st appellate court to the extent of their appointments. Accordingly both the parties had filed revision petitions in this Court and a Single Bench of this Court had maintained the judgment of the learned 1st appellate court by modifying the judgment of 1st appellate court to the effect that the present respondents/decree holders shall also be entitled to get arrears of their salaries vide judgment dated 29/10/2015. A The judgment/decree of this Court had attained finality, therefore the present respondents/ decree holders filed an execution petition in the trial court/executing court which was dismissed by the trial court by allowing objections of present petitioners/judgment debtors vide its order dated 02/10/2016. The present respondents/decree holders challenged the aforesaid order of the trial court through an appeal which was allowed by the learned 1st appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 28/11/2017, hence this revision petition.
3. The learned Addl. AG and legal advisor of GB PWD contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Addl. AG and legal advisor of GB PWD further argued that the maintenance head of PWD has been abolished by Finance Department vide notification dated 19/06/2015, and resultantly the decree passed in favour of the respondents/decree holders has become infractuous and the same is not executable, therefore, the learned executing court has rightly dismissed the execution, petition of the present respondents/ decree holders.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents/ decree holders supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court by contending that since decree passed by this Court in favour of respondents vide judgment/decree dated 29/10/2015 has attained finally and the learned executing court was bound to execute the decree but the learned executing court has 'wrongly dismissed the execution petition of the respondents/decree holders and the learned 1st appellate court has rightly set aside the order of executing court dated 02/10/2016.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. From perusal of order dated 02/10/2016 passed by the learned executing court it reveals that the learned executing court has dismissed the execution petition of the respondents/decree holding that the execution petitioner is not maintainable as the relevant head against which the decree was to be executed and salaries of the decree holders were to be recovered has been abolished by Finance Department vide notification dated 19/06/2015 as such there is no vacant post in field. But I do not agree with this observation of the executing court. Since the decree passed by learned 1st appellate court as well as this Court has attained finality and the judgment debtors/present petitioners are bound to appoint the present respondents in the light of decree of this Court and if there is no vacant post, the petitioners/judgment debtors can create posts for appointments of decree holders/respondents. It is well settled principle of law that it is not open to the executing court to go beyond the decree or re-determine the liabilities of parties as the decree has become final. The judgment debtors/petitioners have taken the plea that the maintenance head of GB. PWD has been abolished first time before the executing court but this plea has neither taken before trial court nor 1st appellate court nor in this Court at the time of hearing of their revision petition, hence judgment debtors/petitioners can not take the aforesaid plea before executing court.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the learned 1st appellate court has not committed any material illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment Warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court is maintained. Parties are left to bear their own costs.