ISLAMABAD, Oct 11 (APP):Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on Friday remarked that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s request to adjourn the review appeal regarding intra-party elections was a delaying tactic.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan adjourned the hearing until October 21 on the review petition. The CJP stated that no further adjournments would be granted.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Jus
tice Qazi Faez Isa, heard PTI’s review appeal regarding the intra-party elections.
Earlier, during the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked th
at the case had originally been scheduled for May 29, and that an adjournment request had been made by Ali Zafar until June 4.
The CJP noted th
at the intra-party election case had become linked to the election symbol ‘bat.’ He stated that he had never seen a request for adjournment based on family engagements, adding, however, that adjournments could be sought in cases of illness or a death in the family.
Chief Jus
tice Qazi Faez Isa described PTI’s adjournment request as a delaying tactic and reiterated th
at the court would not grant further postponements.
The CJP emphasized that while the hearing was being adjourned, at least the truth should be presented
before the court.
Justice Musarat Hilali observed that even PTI’s associate lawyers had failed to appear in court, stressing that such an attitude should not be adopted
before the Supreme Court.
The CJP responded th
at the court was adjourning the hearing in the interest of justice, not to entertain the adjournment request.
In its order regarding today’s hearing, the court noted that PTI’s lawyer, Hamid Khan, had requested a postponement citing family engagements. However, the lawyer had not specified the nature of these family engagements.
The court stated that PTI had filed the review petition against the judgment dated January 13. It also mentioned that if the PTI counsel had family commitments, the party could hire other lawyers to represent them.
The court pointed out that under Section-6 of the Practices and Procedure Act, a lawyer could be replaced in a review petition. It then rejected the request to postpone today’s hearing but noted th
at the time for hearings could be adjusted in the interest of justice.
The court concluded th
at the next hearing would take place on October 21 and no further adjournments would be granted.
