ALI BAIG, J.----This review petition under Section 114, C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned judgment/order dated 04-01-2020, passed by this Court in CFA No.01/2020, whereby , this Court has issued direction to the respondents to implead the Gilgit-Baltistan Provincial Government and PWD as defendants under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. and till then the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court was suspended.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant review petition are that the present respondents/plaintif fs had filed suit for declaration and possession of certain land situated at Sonikote Gilgit against the present petitioners/defendants in the trial court which was dismissed by the learned trial court after conducting full trial. The present respondents had filed Civil First Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. Along with the memo. of appeal, the appellants had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. Initially , the learned First Appellate Court had granted status-quo order vide order dated 30- 11-2019. Later on, the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 30-12-2019 had modified its status order and vacated status-quo order to the extent of construction of link road from Shaheed Saif-ur-Rehman Hospital to Sonikote Gilgit, which was challenged in this Court through Civil First Appeal. This Court vide the impugned order dated 04-01-2020 had directed the prese nt respondents to implead the governm ent functionaries under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. and till then the impugn ed order of the learned First Appellate Court was suspended. The appeal of the present respondents was disposed of in the above terms.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioners have filed the instant review petition in this Court seeking review of order of this Court dated 04-01-2020.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the impugned order passed by this Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside . The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the impugned order has been passed by this Court in absence of the petitioners; thus, no any order to the interest of any person should be passed without giving him an opportunity for explaining his position; hence, the impugned order passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed.
5. On the other hand, the learned counse l for the respondents has opposed this review petition by contending that since the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and its functionaries are necessary party to the suit, therefore, this Court has rightly directed the lower Court to implead the Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and other Government Departments as defendants in the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that review has limited scope and the learned counsel for the petitioners has not taken valid grounds in the instant petition to review order of this Court dated 04-01-2020; hence, this review petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of record, it transpires that the Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and its concerned departments are necessary parties to the suit and the present respondents should have impleaded the Provincial Government, Collector Gilgit, Secretary Works, Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer G.B. PWD etc. as defendants in the suit and without impleading the Provincial Government G.B. etc. no effective decree can be passed in the matter , therefore, this Court has rightly passed impugned order directing the present respondents to implead Provincial Government G.B. and its functionaries as defendants in the suit. Hence, this review petition is not maintainable as main aim of review is correction of errors in the judgment/order not involving process of reasoning or appreciation of law and facts and not for correcting wrong decisions. While exercising powers of review , court cannot hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment. Reference in this regard is made to the reported judgment of Lahore High Court 2003 CLC 1773 .
8. The outcome of the above discussion is that I see no merit in this review petition which is dismissed accordingly .
File.