Islamabad:
The judge of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) Babar Sattar has indicated that the president of the Supreme Court of IHC has no authority to determine, on the administrative side or otherwise, as if a bank should listen to a case or not.
“Once a case is established for the hearing before a single bank or the division, it corresponds to said bank to determine if the circumstances arise so that the case is transferred to another bank, even due to the challenge of a judge that includes the bank,” said the judge in a three -page order.
An IHC bank, including Judge Sattar, on March 14, determined that it would be in the interest of justice if another bank listened to a case. However, the case file was “inexplicably” returned to the bank file.
The file contained comments registered on the administrative side by the President of the Interim Justice of IHC, Muhammad Sarfraz, which the case should be heard by the same bank.
When commenting on the development, Judge Sattar declared that the return of the case to this bank “must have been an unnoticed error committed by the Office of the Registrar and/or the staff of the Hon’ble office in the President of Interine Justice.”
He said that once the judge composed of a bank determines that he/she would not like to hear the case for the reasons indicated, said court order is not susceptible to interference by the office of the President of the Supreme Court or the Registrar considering that it is a matter of the Administration.
“The obligation to fix urgent and ordinary cases before available banks fall within the domain of the deputy secretary under the rules of the Superior Court adopted by the IHC.
“The responsibility of the President of the Supreme Court is to approve the list of court banks prepared by the deputy secretary. But once such a list is prepared and approved, the president of the Supreme Court does not have to perform in the fixation of each and every case presented in the Court.
“It is only when a bank seized of a case believes that a larger or special bank is constituted to listen to the issue that the matter must be sent to the President of the Court, since the Superior Court says in its office the authority to approve the list of banks,” he added.
Judge Sattar declared that the current practice of referring the issue of the desire of a bank to withdraw from listening to a case to the president of the president of reallocation and transfer from one court to another does not agree with the rules of the Superior Court.
“In the case of challenge or when the need to transfer a case of the Seized Bank file arises, the matter must be marked to the attached registrar for placement before another bank available, in view of the list of banks of banks approved by Justice Justice.
“Let the file, therefore, send to the Deputy Secretary (Judicial) of this Court, who will ensure that it is fixed before another bank available according to the approved list of the Banks Session, which does not understand any of the judges [of the existing bench that heard the matter]”He added.
