' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 16-1-1993.
2. Brief facts of the case are that ownership of the property in dispute measuring 146 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Khata No,135, Mauza Gohar Muhammad Tehsil Kabirwala, now District Khanewal was subject-matter of challenge in counter Suit No,672 of 1972 and 178-A of 1974 respectively brought by father (Barkat Ali) and son (Muhammad Ismail) against each other and now between aunt and nephew challenging Revenue Report No,308, dated 6-6-1968 made by Din Muhammad to the Revenue Patwari that one-half of the suit property was gifted in his favour by his grandfather Din Muhammad and Mutation No,80 was sanctioned on 28-7-1968 pursuant to the said report and compromise, dated 17-9-1970 filed before A.C./Collector, Kabirwala. The trial Court decreed the suit of Barkat Ali to the extent of 46 Kanals and 19 Marlas and that of Muhammad Ismail to the extent of 100 Kanals. The Additional District Judge upset it making Muhammad Ismail the owner of the entire land on the basis of gift made by Din Muhammad, his grandfather holding that/same was lawfully gifted in his favour by his grandfather.
3. The learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the revision petition by maintaining the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment, dated 16-1-1993. Review filed against it was also dismissed vide order, dated 2-5-1993. Against this decision a petition for special leave to appeal was filed which was dismissed being barred by 55 days vide order, dated 18-5-1994. The petitioners moved an application for review of the order accompanied by an application for condonation of delay which was entertained on the ground that the alleged gift was evidenced by Mutation No,80 attested at a time when Martial Law Regulation 64 placed certain restrictions on the alienation of agricultural land, that report made to the Patwari by the donor through Roznamcha pertained to the gift of half of his total ownership which clearly offended the Martial Law Regulation 64 and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court whether they can question the transaction being in violation of Martial Law Regulation or not was also involved in the instant litigation.
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above question and also whether the Courts below have correctly followed the principles governing appraisement of evidence in civil cases as laid down by this Court.