Could not be of any advantage to them for claiming the share on the basis of section 20 of the Act.

Collector, Bahawalpur v. Haji Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 469 and Hakim Ali v. Muhammad Salim and another 1992 SCMR 46. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant paragraph of said case-law:- 

“In this case, as pointed out above, the respondent never took up the defence of having purchased the share in the Khata and this is the reason why no issue was framed; this plea was never a part of their appeal or grounds of revision, therefore only for the reason that they were able to produce in the evidence, the mutation No.2518 could not be of any advantage to them for claiming the share on the basis of section 20 of the Act. The arguments that such mutation has been admitted in evidence by the trial Court without any objection from the petitioner, suffice it to say that even that being so, the evidence which is brought on the record by a litigant, even not subjected to objection by the opposing side, but it is outside the purview of his pleadings, should not be looked into by the Court, rather should be ignored. Resultantly the High Court on account of the above could not consider the said mutation and grant relief to the respondent, which was not within the parameters of their defence. The learned High Court in this regard has committed a grave illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction, thus the impugned judgment cannot sustain in law. 

  Part of Judgment 

 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision-Civil Revision(Against Decree)-Suit for Possession
2599-10

2017 LHC 5087