LAHORE, Dec 13: A Lahore High Court full bench on Thursday adjourned hearing of a contempt of court petition against President Asif Ali Zardari till Friday (today) and asked petitioner’s counsel to come up with concluding arguments.

Earlier, AK Dogar representing the petitioner argued that Article 248 (2) of the Constitution did not cover personal acts of the President but only the official ones. Citing different judgments of Supreme Court, he said defiance of court orders could not be protected under constitutional immunity.

Referring to SC judgment in Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani’s case the counsel said the apex court took action against the former prime minister purely as per the law which compelled his successor to obey the order and write letter to Swiss authorities.

Relying upon a judgment passed by former chief justice of Pakistan Hamoodur Rehman in 1962, he stated the contempt of court proceedings, if initiated, would be sui generis (neither criminal nor civil).

The judges of the bench observed that the proceedings would automatically become criminal in nature when the respondent was awarded punishment at the end.

Mr Dogar said: “I do not want the court to punish Mr Zardari but compliance of judgment.”

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial adjourned further hearing and asked the counsel to also bring arguments on a point whether punishment was necessary in contempt of court proceedings.

The CJ directed the counsel to conclude his arguments by the next hearing and asked an additional attorney general to inform the bench as to when the federation’s counsel, Wasim Sajjad, would start his arguments on the issue of immunity.

At the start of the Thursday’s hearing, a group comprising federal law officers and members of Punjab Bar Council requested the chief justice to defer the hearing due to a strike announced by Pakistan Bar Council in condemnation of a deadline for disposal of old pending cases fixed by the National Judicial Policy making committee.

The chief justice rejected the request and said the court would continue its work, while no adverse action would be taken if the lawyers did not appear.