1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8-5-1998 whereby Revision Petition filed by Abdul son of Shahab- ud-Din (father of the petitioner-Gulshan) was accepted and as consequence whereof judgment dated 17-6-1992 passed by Additional District Judge, Gujranwala was set aside and case was remanded to the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala for decision afresh alongwith appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that by a gift deed, dated 10-5-1978, agricultural land measuring 174 Kanals and 1 Marla, situated in Qasimpur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was transferred by the father of petitioner namely Abdul son of Shahab-ud-Din in her favour.
2. Subsequent thereto on 19-1-1993 Abdul son of Shahab-ud-Din filed a suit alongwith one Sultan for declaration that the gift deed dated 10-5-1978 is the result of forgery, fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, declared to be inoperative against their interest. On merits it was averred that the land, subject-matter of the gift deed was given in exchange by Abdul to Sultan son of Muhammad Din (plaintiff No,2) vide deed dated 16-1-1983, therefore, he had not executed any gift deed in favour of petitioner. The suit was resisted by the petitioner by filing written statement through her guardian wherein she maintained that the land in dispute was validly transferred to her through gift deed, dated 10-5-1978 possession whereof was also delivered to her and she being in its possession is the owner. As far as the exchange deed, dated 16-1-1983 is concerned, its execution was considered to be invalid. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 3-4-1988 decreed the suit and declared that the gift deed was fictitious, therefore, void and ineffective against the rights of Abdul who is now represented by his legal heirs. In appeal the judgment/decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and the suit filed by Abdul and Sultan Muhammad was dismissed on 17th June, 1992. As such they filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court which was allowed by means of impugned order.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore has misread and misappreciated the evidence available on record.
4. According to him a gift deed was duly executed by Abdul who is the father of petitioner Mst.
5. Gulshan but during the proceedings, he denied that she is not her daughter whereas the evidence brought on record reveals that she is daughter of Abdul and gift deed was made validly in her favour. Because the learned High Court, had set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and had disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses produced by the respondents to prove the gift deed dated 10th May, 1978.
6. Therefore, in view of above circumstances, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to examine whether in exercise of revisional juridiction learned High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record?