Permitted to lead additional evidence but the petitioners were not allowed to rebut those documents which were produced by predecessor-ininterest of the respondents;

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as predecessor-in-interest of the respondents did not produce copy of mutation No.652 during the course of affirmative evidence she could not be allowed to produce the same at the time of recording of evidence in rebuttal; that in the garb of additional evidence, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents could not be allowed to improve her case and remove lacunas surfaced on the scene after recording evidence of the parties; that though predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was permitted to lead additional evidence but the petitioners were not allowed to rebut those documents which were produced by predecessor-ininterest of the respondents; that as predecessor-in-interest of the respondents only produced part patwar of mutation No.652, the same could not be brought on record through the statement of the learned counsel for predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as it had no sanctity in the eye of law; that the hollowness of the claim of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/the respondents is clear from the fact that the land mentioned in the plaint does not tally with that mentioned in the mutation and that it is a fit case for remand. To fortify his contentions learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases reported as Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq (PLD 2013 SC 392), M/s Bata Shoe Company and 2 others v. Muhammad Arshad Siddiqui (1991 SCMR 1775), Tariq Mehmood v. Contractor Ahmed Din and 4 others (2009 PSC 724), Allah Diwaya and others v. Mst. Sukah Khatoon and others (2012 MLD 1300), Mst. Sharman and 11 others v. Syed Ali Hussain and 8 others (2006 YLR 130), Haji Nazir Muhammad Khan and others v. Maulvi Muhammad Hassan and others (2006 PLR 573), Haji Abdul Ghafoor Akhtar v. Malik Tahir Mukhtar Asghar (2001 CLC 1721), Naseer Ahmed v. District Judge Multan and 4 others (PLD 1992 Lahore 92), Rana Muhammad Shabbir (deceased) through his L.Rs. v. Muhammad Ismail and 3 others (1990 CLC 546) and Murid Hussain v. Muhammad Lal (1987 CLC 101).

 Part of Judgment 

 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

Civil Rev. Against Decree

337-09

2017 LHC 4412