ALI BAIG, J.----This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned judgment/order dated 14-12-2018, passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit, whereby , the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the Civil First Appeal of present petitioners by maintaining the judgment/order of the learned Trial Court dated 27-08-2017.
2. Briefly stated facts necessary for disposal of the instant revision petition are that the present respondent/ plaintif f (hereinafter called as respondent) had filed a suit against the present petitioners/defendants (hereinafter called as petitioners) in the learned Trial Court for recovery of seven annual increments payable for period of contractual services with FBISE Islamabad from 1996 to 2000 as Assistant Secretary (BS-17). The learned Trial Court after conducting full trial had decreed suit of the respondent vide judgment/decree dated 29-08-2013.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/de cree of the learned Trial Court, the present petitioners had filed Civil First Appeal in the court of learned District Judge Gilgit which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge Gilgit vide the judgment/order dated 22-1 1-2014.
4. The present petitioners had also filed a revision petition before this Court against the aforementioned judgment/order of the learned First Appel late Court which was also dismissed by a single bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12-11-2015. The petitioners had also filed objection/appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court against the judgment of this Court dated 12-11-2015 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble apex Court of Gilgit- Baltistan vide order dated 19-10-2016.
5. Accordingly , the present respondent filed execution petition in the Trial/Executin g Court. The present petitioners filed objection petition in the Executing Court which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 27-08-2017. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment/order of the learned Executing Court, the petitioners had filed Civil First Appeal in the court of learne d District Judge Gilgit. The learned District Judge Gilgit, after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the appeal of the presen t petitioners vide the impugned judgment/order dated 14-12-2018, hence this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Execution Petition filed by the present respondent was hopelessly time barred as the Trial Court had passed the initial judgment/decree on 29-08-2013 and the Execution Petition was filed in the Executing Court on 10-08-2017, after lapse of about four years of the passing of initial decree by the-learned. Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the learned courts below are result of misconception of law and facts; therefore, both the impugned judgments/ decrees passed by both the courts below are not maintainable and liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned couns el for the respondent has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the petitioners had filed objection petition on the ground that the Execution Petition of respondent is time barred, whereas, the Execution Petition of the respondent was well within time as the said Execution Petition has been filed before the Executing Court by respondent after attaining finality of decree passed by the learned Trial Court after dismissing of appeal of the petitioners by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court.
8. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the record of the case.
9. From perusal of record, it transpires that the Trial/Executing Court has passed the initial decree in favour of the respondent on 29-08-2013 and final appeal/objection petition of the petitioners/judgment-debtors was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court on 19-10-2016. The respondent/decree-holder has filed Execution Petition on 10-10-2017 within one year of the passing of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court; hence, the Execution Petition was well within time as operation of impugned judgment/decree passed by the trial court was suspended by the learned First Appellate Court, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court. Since the appeal of the petitioners/judgment-debtors was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan on 19- 10-2016 by maintaining judgment/decree of lower/trial court, then in the said eventuality , the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court would merge into order of lower forums/courts as such period of limitation for filing of Execution Petition would start from the order of final appellate forum/Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit- Baltistan.
10. Moreover , the petitioners/judgment-d ebtors have also failed to annex necessary documents, i.e., copies of plaint written statement, judgments/decre es of the trial court and lower appellate court with the revision petition.
These documents including other were required to be annexed with the revision petition in view of Section 115, C.P.C., therefore, this revision petition is also not maintainable on that score/cause too as the above mentioned necessary documents were not purposely brought on the record by the petitioners/judgment-debtors.
11. For what has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that both the lower courts have not committed any material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgme nts/decrees calling interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction rather both the lower courts have rightly recorded concurrent findings in accordance B with law. Thus, this revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment/order dated 14-12-2018 passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit is maintained. Parties are left to bear their own costs". File.