Summary: In this case, Mst. Zubaida Qureshi and others filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Iqbal Hussain Qureshi and others, claiming ownership of a disputed property based on an alleged oral gift made by their mother, Mst. Kalsoom Ahmed alias Umme Kalsoom. The trial court allowed the statements of some witnesses of the petitioners to be recorded through a Local Commission in Karachi. However, when the petitioners sought to include three more witnesses for recording their statements through the same Local Commission, the trial court declined their request.The petitioners filed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's decision to decline their application for recording statements through the Local Commission. They argued that they were elderly Parda Nasheen Ladies (veiled women) permanently residing in Karachi, which was about 1000 kilometers away from the trial court in Chishtian. They contended that traveling to the trial court for recording their statements would be difficult for them, and they requested to have their statements recorded at their expense through the same Local Commission that was already appointed for other witnesses.The respondents opposed the revision petition, arguing that the trial court's decision was in accordance with the law. They maintained that the petitioners had chosen to file the suit in Chishtian and, therefore, should not be allowed to record their statements elsewhere.The Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, addressed two issues. First, it examined the maintainability of the civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and found that it was competent since the order granting or declining permission to record evidence through a commission falls under the category of a "case decided" for the purpose of Section 115 CPC.Secondly, the court considered the petitioners' circumstances and found their request reasonable. The petitioners were unmarried, elderly Parda Nasheen Ladies residing in Karachi, and their statements being recorded separately at Chishtian would consume significant time. In light of various legal precedents, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order, and granted the petitioners' request to record their statements through the Local Commission at Karachi. The trial court was directed to fix the commission's fee for the petitioners and proceed accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.