' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.---We have heard all the learned counsel appearing in this matter. The controversy and the factual aspects of the matter have been dealt with in the impugned judgment and hence we do not deem it fit to repeat the same. However, in essence the lis between the petitioner and the respondents in all the aforementioned CPLAs is as to the title to property bearing No,S-33-R-12 situated at 10-Montgomery Road, Lahore or a part thereof. The petitioner had succeeded in establishing before this Court that the said property is not evacuee in the case reported as "Mst. Maram Bibi alias Kumari Anne Balklah Kaul v. The Custodian Evacuee Property Punjab Lahore and 166 others" (1996 SCM R 1483). However, as there were many claimants to the property she was constrained to, file a suit before the learned Civil Court in which the respondents in this matter were arrayed as defendants. The learned Civil Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not prove her title to the properties in view of the fact that she had sold a few portions thereof to some respondents but in so far as the other respondents are concerned who claimed their title on the basis of T.O. From the Settlement Authorities or those who in fact never contested the suit perhaps no findings were given. According to all the learned Counsel, the matter regarding the uncontested defense as well as the persons who claimed the properties on the basis of orders from the Settlement Authorities was not even discussed by the learned High Court in the Impugned Judgment. According to some of the learned counsel, the said judgment only deals with the vendees who allegedly had purchased the property in question from the petitioner and had upheld their claims.
2. In the aforementioned circumstances, we queried Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court who appeared for some of the respondents claiming title upon sale by the petitioner, as to how in fact the sale in question was proved. Learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court read out a particular portion of the judgment of the Civil Court in which the entire evidence has been discussed and stated that in view of the same which stood unrequited, the learned Civil Court came to the correct conclusion that the sale stands proved which in fact has been reiterated by the High Court.
3. In our opinion, the said sale in favor of Boray Wala Bus Service has not been proved since it was not done in accordance with law i,e, the marginal witnesses were not examined etc: It is not sufficient for a party to a case just to place certified copies on the record and then claim that they have been proved without following the procedure prescribed by the law.
4. In these circumstances, we had suggested to all the learned counsel that perhaps the matter could be remanded back to the Civil Court in view of the fact that the sale in question was never formally challenged by the petitioner i,e, she never sought a declaration that the sale deeds be cancelled and so also the fact that perhaps in both the judgments, the claims of at least those persons based upon orders from the Settlement Authorities were never touched. Mr. Amir Alam Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court and other learned Counsel have agreed, whereas Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court has stated that in view of unrequited and un-rebutted evidence on the record, the claim of his client at least stands proved.
5. We have already expressed our opinion as to the argument of Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court as afore-noted and we cannot agree with his proposition that the claim of his client stood proved in accordance with law. Consequently, we would remand the case to the Civil Court where the petitioners would have the right to amend the plaint, subject of course to all just exceptions and from which point the matter would start again. Accordingly, Civil Petition No,1060-L of 2007 is converted into an appeal and allowed in above terms. The Impugned Judgments of the learned High Court dated 13-2-2007 as well as that of the trial Court dated 6-5-2002 are set aside. We would also direct the learned Civil Court to decide the matter as quickly as possible preferably within a period of six months because it is an old case.
Civil Petitions Nos. 1117-L and 1118-L of 2007 ' Mr. Guizarin Kiyani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court does not press these petitions, therefore, the same are dismissed as such.