Produced by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents after permission for additional evidence,

11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners repeatedly argued that as the petitioners were not provided an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents after permission for additional evidence, it is fit case for remand. In this regard, I do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioners firstly for the reason that remand of cases in routine has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as held in the cases reported as Shahida Zareen v. Iqrar Ahmad Siddique (2010 SCMR 1119) and Habib Ullah v. Azmat Ullah (PLD 2007 SC 271) and secondly only copies of public record were brought on record by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in addition to producing one Waseem Akhtar who was cross- examined by the petitioners at reasonable length, thus, the petitioners could not claim that they were not allowed an opportunity to unveil the truth by producing further evidence. Further, as the petitioners failed to rebut the fact regarding minority of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents at the time of making gift by her in the name of predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners, the very basis of their case fell to ground.  

Part of Judgment 

 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

Civil Rev. Against Decree

337-09

2017 LHC 4412