ALI BAIG, J.----The petitioners by filing the instant review petition under section 114, C.P.C., have sought review of order of this Court dated 18-09-2019 and have prayed for setting aside of the order dated 18-09-2019 passed by this Court.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant review application are that the present respondent/petitioner (herein after called respondent) had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the present petitioners/defendants (herein after called as petitioners) in the trial Court. Along with said suit the respondent had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the said order the present respondent had filed civil 1st appeal in the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge Gilgit. The learned 1st appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of the parties had also dismissed the aforesaid CFA vide judgment/order dated 23-02-2019, which was challenged before this Court by the present respondent through civil revision petition bearing No.56/2019. This Court/the then Hon'ble Chief Judge of this Court has passed the impugned order which is re-produced as under:- "The answering respondents, shall abstain from further alienation of the suit land and ensure maintenance of the status quo prevailing till date till the final disposal of the suit pending before the trial Court who shall ensure disposal of the civil suit at his earliest."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore reproduced order of this Court, the petitioners have filed the instant review petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on 18-09-2019 this Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties in civil revision petition bearing No. 56/2019 had verbally ordered that the suit land shall not be further alienate to any other person while the possessor of the suit land if willing to construct building on the suit land can construct building on the suit land on his own risk or cost but while writing the impugned order this Court has granted status quo/injunction in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners which is liable to be revised.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the Hon'ble Chief Judge of this Court had not allowed the petitioners to construct building on the disputed land on their own risk and cost rather this Court has granted status quo in the matter .
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by this Court on 18-09-2019.
8. From perusal of the aforementioned impugned order passed by the former Hon'ble Chief Judge of this Court it appears that this Court has categorically directed the parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the suit by the trial Court and presumption of truth is attached to the order/judgment of, this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to prove that this Court had verbally declined to grant status quo in favour of the present respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent did not admit the version of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. It is well settled principle of law that a review petition is not competent where neither any new and important evidence has been disclosed nor any mistake or error is apparent on the face of record. In the instant case neither there is any mistake nor error apparent on the face of record nor there is discovery of a new important matter or evidence. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for review of the impugned order of this Court dated 18-09-2019.
10. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this civil review petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. File.