Islamabad          -         The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday expressed its annoyance over Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) for challenging the same case of Toshakhana reference in two courts. a single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice aamer Farooq conducted hearing of a petition filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) verdict in the Toshakhana reference. during the hearing, barrister Gohar informed the court that barrister ali Zafar the main counsel in the petition could not appear before the bench this day due to his engagements in lahore High Court (lHC). Therefore, he prayed the court to adjourn the case till next week. The IHC bench was also informed that the PTI had moved an identical case in lHC and it did not inform the bench about it. but, barrister Gohar said that they had challenged the ECP’s notice dated december 7. The IHC Chief Justice remarked that the petitioner could not challenge the notice at two forums at the same time and asked the lawyer to withdraw the case. He remarked that it was understandable if this was done by a young lawyer but barrister ali Zafar was a senior one. The PTI’s counsel said that barrister ali Zafar would give arguments on this point on the next hearing. Justice aamer said that it was not an appropriate act. later, the court deferred the hearing till Jan 25 for further proceedings. Previously, Khan’s counsel Barrister ali Zafar made the submission before that it is bizarre that the Election Commission of Pakistan ECP) disqualified him for the assets that he legally purchased and lawfully sold. The counsel adopted the stance before the bench that Khan was elected as MNA from NA-95 Mianwali in July 2018 but, through an illegal order of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) dated 21/10/2022, ECP disqualified him from this seat under article 63(1) (p) of the Constitution. The decision of the speaker to send the reference and order of ECP is unconstitutional and void ab initio, he submitted. He adopted the stance that the speaker without any document or evidence whatsoever, in a mechanical manner, without any reasoning and total lack of application of mind, and contrary to the law and the Constitution; accepted the application filed by a few MNAs and filed a reference before the ECP asking ECP to disqualify Imran Khan under article 62(1)(f). He submitted that acting malafide in law, ECP also accepted the reference and disqualified Imran Khan from the seat. He argued that for a disqualification under article 62(1)(f) to take place there must be a pre-existing declaration from a Court of law against the member. He pointed out that in this case there was no declaration from a Court of law as required under article 62(1) (f) against Imran Khan at the time of speaker’s decision nor before ECP when ECP was called upon to answer the questions raised in the reference.