' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek review of judgment of this Court dated 1-12-1992, whereby the judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 10-9-1976 was restored.
2. The dispute in a nutshell relates to roof of a shop in possession of the petitioners. They claimed the roof as well, which was transferred by the order of the Settlement Commissioner to respondent No,1 holding that it was a part of the residential portion in his possession. The facts in detail and the observations of the Settlement Commissioner are fully stated in the judgment sought to be reviewed and need not be repeated here.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was passed in exercise of power of review which was not available to him at the material time. This plea does not seem to have been agitated at any stage before the High Court. Even in memo of appeal such a plea had not been raised. Now in this Court on this ground the judgment cannot be reviewed. Other pleas, namely, that the roof was not an integral part of the residential portion on the first floor and that the shop in dispute in possession of Rehman Gul was an independent unit all relate to the appreciation of facts which have been considered and decided and on this plea no review can be entertained. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on Muhammad Yaqub v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 439) submitted that a shop is limited up to the ceiling and does not cover the roof as well and the question that the respondent (Muhammad Younus) user of roof as courtyard cannot be held to be illegal nor can it be agitated at this stage.
4. For these reasons review petition is dismissed.