LAHORE-A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on various identical applications including that of Punjab govt and Speaker Punjab Assembly praying to become party in petitions against the by-elections of Sharif brothers. The bench headed by Justice Fazal-e-Miran Chouhan and comprising of Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon reserved the verdict for Thursday (today) after hearing lengthy arguments of both parties. On Wednesday, the proceedings were started with the arguments of advocate Raza Kazim, counsel for Khurram Shah, who challenged the by-election of CM Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif. Kazim argued that under Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 only a rival candidate and a voter have the right to challenge the qualification of a candidate. He said that the working of the Punjab Assembly could not be affected because the court proceedings were entirely different than the proceedings of the Assembly. 'I did not challenge the proceedings of the Assembly', he added. He said if Shahbaz Sharif was disqualified from holding any public office, another member of the Assembly, who could be from the PML-N, could become the Chief Minister. He said that former PML-Q Minister Ajmal Cheema was disqualified, the govt did not file any application to become a party. Advocate Kazim alleged that such deliberations on behalf of provincial govt and the Speaker Punjab Assembly proved that Shahbaz was not eligible to contest elections and they were trying to influence the court proceedings. Representing the Punjab govt, Khawaja Haris advocate argued that the govt affairs would be affected severely if the petitions against the candidature of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif were accepted. He said the court could not take up the petitions against Shahbaz Sharif because now except polling the whole election process had been completed and he (Shahbaz) had been elected unopposed and subsequently selected as the CM. Meanwhile, Advocate Akram Sheikh appearing on behalf of Speaker Punjab Assembly argued that a public office is being created for the benefit of the people. 'So a beneficiary has the right to defend such office', he added. He said his client, the Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, being the custodian of the House has the right to defend Shahbaz, who was not only a member but also elected the Leader of the House too. Sheikh said that if anyone did not appear before the court, the court had no right to destroy his case. Prior to render his arguments, Akram Sheikh tried to get the court convinced that the case was not a private dispute between a retailer and public office holder and he was present in court to defend the public office not a private party. Representing Zafar Iqbal, the proposer for Mian Nawaz Sharif from NA-123, Iqbal Haider advocate said his client was a concerned party and could become a party in the case. He said that the law said after the tribunal decided the appeals against Nawaz Sharif, the election could not be challenged. Haider said the election started when the Election Commission of Pakistan started the process of submission of nomination papers and announced date for holding it. The bench asked why the proposer would like to defend the petition against Sharif, who was not appearing before it. The counsel said Nawaz Sharif should not be penalised for he was busy working for the independence of judiciary and the rule of law in the country. Haider said he did not know he would have to argue at length for having done the simple procedure of getting notice served on the concerned parties. AK Dogar of PLF also argued to become a party in the petitions against Nawaz Sharif. Appearing before the court, AK Dogar advocate said he was not defending the Sharifs but wanted to court to enforce his fundamental rights. 'It is a fundamental right of every citizen in a civilised society to chose someone for the collective good', he added. During the course of proceedings, the counsel said Justice Yaqoob has written in one of his verdicts that those who endorsed Martial Laws were the collaborators of the Martial Law. When Justice Chohan observed that they were not the collaborators, the lawyers asked them as to why they took an oath under the Provisional Constitution Order. Winding up his arguments, the counsel said political justice was a fundamental right and could be enforced like other rights.