SC registrar returns PTI chief's Toshakhana case plea
PTI chief moved court against IHC rejection of his appeal to transfer case to another court
August 06, 2023
- Khan moved top court against IHC rejection of his plea.
- SC registrar return appeal on grounds of various deficiencies.
- PTI chief submitted judgements relied upon by single judge.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has approached the Supreme Court against the rejection of his appeal, seeking to transfer the Toshakhana reference to another court, by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
However, the SC registrar's office returned the appeal, citing various deficiencies including the improper execution of the power of attorney, inadequate case description, improper formatting of the memo of parties, and the unavailability of names and signatures of the petitioner/Advocate on Record (AOR) in the appeal, The News reported.
The PTI chief filed his plea in the apex court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, seeking permission to appeal against the IHC chief justice's order issued on August 4.
He prayed to the apex court to convert the petition into an appeal against the order, passed by the IHC single bench, led by Chief Justice Amir Farooq. The IHC CJ had rejected an appeal, filed by PTI chairman for the transfer of Toshakhana reference against him to another court.
In his petition, filed in the SC on Saturday through his counsel Barrister Gohar Khan, the PTI chairman submitted that the judgments relied upon by the single judge, IHC chief justice, in refusing to remand the matter for decision afresh to a judge other than the learned judge who had passed in the order impugned in the criminal review petition are wholly inapplicable on law and facts to the instant case and as a result, the impugned judgment is not warranted by law.
However, the SC registrar's office objected that the court fee of Rs250 had not been affixed, court filing fee stamps had not been affixed on the power of attorney, affidavits and civil miscellaneous appeals (CMAs), etc.
Similarly, the registrar's office also stated that no proof was attached as to whether the petitioner was in jail or had served out his sentence, date and impugned case number mentioned in the affidavits and notice is incorrect.
It was further stated that the AOR should clarify at the end of petition that all legible copies of illegible documents have been compared word for word and found correct in all respects
It was objected that "Index/ Concise statement/ Proforma/Mem of petition/Affidavits/ CMA/ Crl M.A have not been signed by AOR/Petitioner in person".
Therefore, if approved, the case may be returned to the "AOR/petitioner to original for removal of the said deficiencies within 14 days i.e. by August 19, 2023", the registrar's office stated.
