Hearing for a high-profile RS10 billion defamation case filed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif against Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) Founding Chairman Imran Khan, was temporarily suspended due to a power defect at Lahore’s Session Court.

The Prime Minister appeared via video link for hearing performed by a further session judge. However, the cross -examination was suddenly stopped due to a power outage, Express News reported.

Earlier during the hearing, Imran Khan’s lawyer, Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotya, crossed the prime minister, who passed an oath before testing.

“I want to speak the truth and not come up with any false statements,” Sharif said.

During the interrogation, Khan’s lawyer asked if Sharif accepts that his lawsuit was not filed in a court, but with a district judge who Sharif’s lawyer interacted in claiming that the case had already been settled.

Imran’s lawyer pressed further and noted that no media house was made a party in the case.

Sharif confirmed this and added that the defamatory statements were repeatedly broadcast on TV.

When Sharif was asked if the accusations were made face to face, Sharif replied: “This weak accusation was repeated on TV several times.”

At one point, Imran’s lawyer asked if he could question Punjabi, whom Sharif replied, “You are welcome to.”

Khan’s lawyer also questioned whether the television programs where the accusations were made from Islamabad. Sharif replied that he was not aware of the emitted origin.

The cross -examination stopped a sudden stop as the electricity went out during Sharif’s video appearance and stopped the procedure.

The Prime Minister stated that his legal team did not name any media offering, employee or official as respondents in the case.

He acknowledged that he had described Khan as a political rival in subsection (1). 3 of the claim, but denied that political rivalry entitled to exchange defamatory statements.

Sharif’s lawyer, Mustafa Ramday, opposed some legal issues asked by Imran Khan’s lawyer, especially about the court’s jurisdiction and the role of the extra district judge in hearing the case.

The judge disregarded the objection and asked Sharif directly if he wanted to answer. Sharif said it was wrong to claim that an additional district judge could not prescribe such a question or record evidence.

The consultation was later postponed until April 25 at 1 p.m. 9:00, where cross study is expected to resume.