Islamabad:
The judge of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC), Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, noted that he could not claim that there is no conflict between the judges of brother at the high court of the capital. He also reiterated his position according to which no intra-haired appeal can be filed against a provisional ordinance of a court.
Earlier, judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan also heard an outrage in court against the Superintendent of Adiala prison for not having authorized the former imprisoned Prime Minister Imran Khan
However, the case was transferred to a larger bench of three members – led by the acting chief of the IHC, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, who eliminated business with instructions.
However, judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan launched a distinct procedure of Contempt by SUO Motu against the Deputy Registrar of the IHC and others for having transferred a case without his permission.
During, hearing about the case on Friday, judge Khan was informed that a IHC division bench had made an order to suspend the outrage procedure initiated by him.
“You present the order of the division bench, which effectively prevents this court from carrying out the court of court. This is a blatant excess of the authority by the division bench,” he said.
According to judge Khan, it is settled by law that an intra-haired appeal is not maintained against a provisional ordinance of a single judge and that the order of the division bench has undermined the authority of a principal colleague.
“If I accept this excessive overcoming, why would the litigants continue to trust my court? Why would someone comply with the orders issued by my court? Because the moment when I make a justification notice for outrage, a division bench can simply suspend it?” He added.
He added: “Let me clarify a clear thing. I started writing order even if I had to sit alone in this courtroom and pretend that people were present.”
During the hearing, judge Khan asked the additional and assistant judicial registraires to know why they hid the fact that an intra-haired appeal had been filed. He said that a division bench had heard the appeal and concluded that he was wrong and that he did not even know the law.
“Do you make a mockery of the IHC? I reassured you that there would be no action taken against you and yet you still made the front and submitted the intra-haired call or were you forced to do it?” He asked.
He said that when the case had been brought before the division bench, he was not authorized to present his position. He said that a unilateral order had been adopted and it was only after being adopted, the court was informed that the procedure had been interrupted.
