PML-N President Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, petitioner in the memo case, has requested the Supreme Court to fix the case hearing after April 20. In an application submitted before the learned bench through Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, the advocate-on-record, Nawaz Sharif's lawyer said that the applicant had learnt that the matter was being fixed for hearing on April 19.
He drew the attention of the court that the Chief Justice of Pakistan had granted general adjournment to applicant's counsel, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, representing Mansoor Ijaz, the applicant, for all his cases between April 12 and April 20, enabling him to leave for a medical check-up abroad.
He said that the presence of respondent No5 (Mansoor Ijaz), the applicant's counsel, was vital for the hearing of the application of Hussain Haqqani (respondent No4), who left the country by submitting an assurance for his return on a four-day notice either by the Inquiry Commission or the apex court.
Accusing Hussain Haqqani of having unleashed a campaign of contempt against the memo commission, he said that he was interfering with the possible outcome of the instant petition.
Terming the presence of the counsel for Mansoor Ijaz (respondent No5/applicant) essential for bringing relevant material on record, he said that certain facts were necessary to be submitted on behalf of respondent No5 for a just and proper decision of recording the testimony of Hussain Haqqani.
"Since the counsel for the Mansoor Ijaz/applicant was present on the last date of hearing when CMA No 1169/2012 was not argued voluntarily by the learned counsel of Hussain Haqqani on the ground of being on general adjournment, the general adjournment has been granted to the applicant's counsel on health grounds".
Therefore, he added, it was just and proper that the applicant might be allowed the opportunity to represent his case for the sake of deciding CMA No 1169/2012.
Contending that Hussain Haqqani (respondent No4) had wilfully flouted the apex court's order dated January 30, 2012, permitting him to travel abroad, Sharif said that he had also not complied with the orders passed on March 1 and March 2, 2012 by the Inquiry Commission. Therefore, he argued, he was not entitled to any indulgence by the apex court.
"That allowing CMA No 1169/2012 amounts to the review of the order dated January 30, 2012 passed by this court which has already attained finality and the respondent No4 has already reaped the benefit of the same, instead of seeking review".
The PML-N chief contended that allowing the CMA No 1169/2012 would amount to allowing parties to make a mockery of the administration of justice by obtaining orders from this august court, while giving undertakings in the first place and later challenging the same after taking advantage of such orders.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.