ISLAMABAD - Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali examining Pervez Musharraf’s appeal against the Registrar office objections directed the SC office to place his review petitions on 31st July 2009 judgement before the court.

The former President last month filed two review petitions in the 31st July 2009 judgment and made Sindh High Court Bar Association and Advocate Nadeem Ahmed as respondents.

Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti on behalf of former dictator appeared before Justice Jamali in his chamber and informed that objection related to signature of Sharifud Din Pirzada on the petition, engaging Ibrahim Satti in the case, supply of more copies of the petition and application allowing Musharraf to file review petition be submitted by their Advocate on Record (AOR). He contended that the Registrar office objections related to scandalous language used in the review petition, first review petition has been dismissed in 2010 and application for staying the proceeding of high treason before Special Court be decided by the court.

Justice Jamali found the submissions of the learned counsel quite fair, just and equitable and passed order, “Two days time are allowed for the compliance of office objections No.iii, v, vi & viii, while the office objections number i, ii & vii are ordered to be placed before the Court along with the review petition,” and disposed of the appeal against the order of the Registrar.

The Registrar office has raised eight objections regarding maintainability of Musharraf review petitions.

It stated that scandalous language has been used against the judges of this court at so many places in this case, therefore it cannot be entertained under Order XVII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

As per certificate of the AOR this is second review petition against the order under review dated 31.07.2009 passed in Constitution Petition No.09/2009, first Review Petition was dismissed vide judgment reported as PLD 2010 SC 483. Therefore, it is not entertainable under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

It is mentioned in this review petition that it has been drawn by Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr ASC, Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr ASC, Dr Khalid Ranjha, Sr ASC and Barrister Dr Muhammad Ali Saif, ASC; however, it has not been signed by Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr ASC.

Certificate of fitness of review petition has only been signed by Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr ASC instead of having been signed by all the counsels who have drawn this review petition which is essentially required under order under Order XXVI Rule 4 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

An application for exemption to the requirements of Order XXVI Rule 6 has been filed, in this review petition and permission has been sought that petitioner may be allowed to engage Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr ASC in this review petition. However, this review petition has been mentioned to have been drawn by Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr ASC, Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr ASC, Dr Khalid Ranjha, Sr ASC, and Barrister Dr Muhammad Ali Saif, ASC.

Petitioner was not party in Constitution Petition No.09/2009 order passed in which is sought to be reviewed through this Review Petition and no application for permission to the petitioner to file this Review Petition has been filed.

Miscellaneous application for staying the proceedings of high treason trial before the special court is misconceived in this review petition.

The registrar office also objected that instead of 14 paper books only four paper books of review petition have been filed.