ISLAMABAD - PML-N President Nawaz Sharif, petitioner in the memo case, has appealed to Supreme Court to fix the case hearing after April 20.
In an application submitted before the court Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer said that the applicant had learnt that the above titled 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, Muhammad Akram Sheikh, who was representing Mansoor Ijaz, the applicant, for all his cases from 12.04.2012 to 20.04.2012 enabling him to have his medical check-up abroad and the learned counsel has already left for the United States.
He said that the presence of respondent no 5 (Mansoor Ijaz), the applicant’s counsel was vital for the hearing and disposal of the application of Hussain Haqqani (respondent no 4) who has left this country by submitting an assurance for his return on four-day notice either by the Inquiry commission or this court.
He stated that Hussain Haqqani had unleashed campaign of contempt against the memo commission as well as interference with possible outcome of instant petition.
That the presence of the counsel for Mansoor Ijaz (respondent No 5/applicant) was essential in order to bring the relevant material on record, certain facts were necessary to be placed and to make submission on behalf of respondent no 5 for just and proper decision of recording the testimony of Hussain Haqqani.
“Since the counsel for the Mansoor Ijaz/applicant was present on 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 applicants counsel on the health grounds.”
Sharif contended that Mr. Hussain Haqqani (respondent no 4) had wilfully flouted the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Court permitting him to travel abroad on his undertaking of returning within four days of the Notice issued by the Supreme Court or the Inquiry Commission, nor has he complied with the orders passed on 1st & 2nd March, 2012 by the Inquiry Commission, therefore, he was not at all entitled to the grant of any indulgence whatsoever by this Court.
“That allowing CMA No. 1169/2012 amounts to review of the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by this Court which has already attained finality and the respondent No.4 has already reaped benefit of the same instead of seeking review”.
The PML-N chief said that allowing the CMA No.1169/2012 would amount to allowing parties to make mockery of the administration of justice by obtaining orders from this august Court while giving undertakings in the first place and later on challenging the same after taking advantages from such orders.