After Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz were granted exemption, Captain (retd.) Safdar also approached the court for the objective.
The three references against the Sharif family are related to the Flagship Investment Ltd, the Avenfield (London) properties and Jeddah-based Al-Azizia Company and Hill Metal Establishment.
Speaking to the media outside the court, Nawaz Sharif reiterated his stance on the court's bias against him. The IHC division bench comprising of Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, on Monday, rejected Nawaz Sharif's petition.
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar Awan departed for London from Lahore's Allama Iqbal International Airport early Tuesday morning.
This involved publication of notices in newspapers directing the accused to appear in court.
Accountability Court Judge Mohammad Bashir is conducting the proceedings, wherein National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) witness, Tayyab Ahmed, is continuing recording his statement.
"He recited an Urdu couplet which means, "(He) sought forgiveness after my murder, This is how (he) showed his regret", when the court asked him what impact it would make if all the witnesses record their statements and produce evidence.
Advocate Khawaja Haris, Sharif's lawyer, was present in the court and will cross-examine the witnesses after they get their statements recorded against Sharifs.
During the hearing, NAB's prosecution team was also present in the court.
The accountability court had previously dismissed the petition, on the same matter, after which Nawaz Sharif filed an appeal at the IHC.
He added that through the application, the petitioner had also been seeking deletion of section 9 (a)(v) from the charges in corruption reference number 20.
The NAB has in total filed three references against the Sharif family and another against the then-Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in the accountability court, in light of the Supreme Court's orders in the Panama Papers case verdict of July 28.
At this, the IHC questioned what effect it would make when this court is hearing the same case.