PESHAWAR: A local court here on Wednesday gave a week’s time to lawyers representing Prime Minister Imran Khan to file reply to a defamation suit filed against him by a former MPA, Fauzia Bibi, who was accused by him of selling her vote in the 2018 Senate elections.

The court of additional district and sessions judge, Abdul Majid Khan, fixed June 9 for next hearing of the case.

The former MPA, who was elected on reserved seats for women on PTI ticket, has filed the suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs500 million for defaming her through levelling “baseless” allegations against her by Mr Khan in a press conference, accusing her of selling her vote in the Senate elections of 2018.

A panel of lawyers including Intizar Hussain Panjotha, Ali Ijaz and Naeem Haider Panjotha appeared for the prime minister and requested for some more time to file the written statement. They said that because of his busy schedule the defendant could not sign the statement.

Court fixes June 9 for next hearing of case

Advocate Syed Ghufranullah Shah represented the plaintiff.

The court had on February 13 decided to start ex-parte proceedings against the prime minister as he had failed to submit the reply despite repeated court orders.

Following that development the prime minister had decided to change his legal team and the present panel of lawyers was assigned the task to represent Mr Khan in the suit.

The panel of lawyers had then requested the court to set aside the ex-parte proceedings and provide them opportunity to file the written statement in reply to this plaint.

As the plaintiff’s counsel had not opposed their request, therefore, the court had accepted their plea. The defamation suit was filed in June 2018 under the Defamation Ordinance 2002. The only defendant in the suit is PTI chief Imran Khan, who subsequently became prime minister.

Fauzia Bibi has claimed that in the Senate polls held on March 3, 2018, she followed the direction with effect to cast vote in favour of all the candidates of her party.

On December 14, 2019, the court had rejected an application of Mr Khan, seeking dismissal of the suit contending that the suit was not maintainable.

Mr Khan had contended that the disciplinary committee of the party had inquired into the matter and submitted its report to him being the chairman of PTI.

He had stated that the referred press conference by the plaintiff was held and organised on the report of the disciplinary committee.

Earlier, another application was filed on behalf of Mr Khan under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, requesting the court to return the suit as the press conference in question was addressed by Mr Khan in Islamabad, which was out of the jurisdiction of the present court.

However, the application was also dismissed by the court on January 30, 2019.

Peshawar High Court had in April 2020 allowed a petition of the plaintiff and ordered that the case should be disposed of as per section 14 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 under which the suit had to be decided within 90 days.

Published in Dawn, June 3rd, 2021

Opinion

Editorial

Under siege
Updated 03 May, 2024

Under siege

Whether through direct censorship, withholding advertising, harassment or violence, the press in Pakistan navigates a hazardous terrain.
Meddlesome ways
03 May, 2024

Meddlesome ways

AFTER this week’s proceedings in the so-called ‘meddling case’, it appears that the majority of judges...
Mass transit mess
03 May, 2024

Mass transit mess

THAT Karachi — one of the world’s largest megacities — does not have a mass transit system worth the name is ...
Punishing evaders
02 May, 2024

Punishing evaders

THE FBR’s decision to block mobile phone connections of more than half a million individuals who did not file...
Engaging Riyadh
Updated 02 May, 2024

Engaging Riyadh

It must be stressed that to pull in maximum foreign investment, a climate of domestic political stability is crucial.
Freedom to question
02 May, 2024

Freedom to question

WITH frequently suspended freedoms, increasing violence and few to speak out for the oppressed, it is unlikely that...