Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on Dawn.com.

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience

.

Alvi files reply on plea against his candidature for presidency

Updated June 13, 2019

Email

Alvi in his reply contented that the allegations levelled against him in the petition were baseless and unfounded. — DawnNewsTV/File
Alvi in his reply contented that the allegations levelled against him in the petition were baseless and unfounded. — DawnNewsTV/File

KARACHI: President of Pakistan Dr Arif Alvi through his lawyer submitted on Wednesday his reply in the Sindh High Court on a petition challenging his candidature for presidency.

The petitioner, Azmat Rehan, who had lost the decades-long civil litigation regarding the ownership of a salt firm against Alvia Tabligh Trust, contended that Dr Alvi, a co-plaintiff in the suit, was not qualified to be elected president of Pakistan since he had allegedly filed fake and forged documents before the court in the 1977 civil case.

Dr Alvi in his reply contented that the allegations levelled against him in the petition were baseless and unfounded, adding that the petition was based on incorrect, fabricated and false averments. He maintained that the petition was not maintainable and also time-barred and pleaded for its dismissal with exemplary costs.

A two-judge bench of the SHC headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi adjourned the hearing till Aug 22 for further proceedings.

The petitioner had filed the case in August last year in the SHC before the presidential election and impleaded the Election Commission of Pakistan and others as respondents.

He further alleged that Dr Alvi obtained judgments in his favour by way of fraud and tampering with documents and the Sindh High Court had also directed the civil court to decide an application filed against him with regard to tampering with documents.

However, the petitioner submitted that the application was still pending before a civil court regardless of the fact that a division bench of the SHC had issued direction to the civil court in August 2014 to decide it within one month.

Published in Dawn, June 13th, 2019