O IV, R 30 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 184 (3) Autonomous jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as Advocate of the Supreme Court, affirming the prejudice of a Supreme Court Judge as a party lawyer by non-lawyer Reasonable and False Statements Advocate Conduct of False Claims Issuance of Notice to the Supreme Court Lawyer's Absence to Show a Superior Court Counsel That the Supreme Court Rules Under O IV, R 30, 1980 R30 Why action is taken (including suspension / removal from exercise) will not be initiated. The Supreme Court Counsel heard his independent case filed against the Supreme Court Judge before the Supreme Court under false and inaccurate statements. The effect is that the Supreme Court judge, hearing the case, refused to accept his request for a general adjournment. Knowing that she is not available, the Supreme Court has set a date for hearing the case. That a Supreme Court judge has repeatedly threatened an officer of the government to take action against his client otherwise his officer's services could be harmed and his client has serious fears that the Supreme Court judge Already complained about it. In the presence of a lawyer representing a litigant against the client, he will make up his mind to decide the case, and the orders so far approved in the Moto case show that such statements in the Advocate's questions in the High Court are false and Were wrong. In order to justify the same lawyer of the Supreme Court in question, no legitimate or relevant explanation was also addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the letter / plea, in which the MOTO will be allowed to hear the case.
