Islamabad: Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi seeking Prime Minister Imran Khan’s disqualification over non-disclosure of his assets and ownership of offshore companies. Also Read - Pak's SC dismisses PML-N leader's petition seeking Imran Khan's disqualification

Rejecting the review petition, a bench headed by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar said that “no lawful point has been raised in the petition” that needs to be reviewed, Geo News reported. Also Read - Imran Khan Gets MQM-P Support to Form Government

During the hearing, Abbasi’s lawyer Akram Sheikh said that “Imran (Khan) provided documents in pieces which were not verified and not acceptable”. Also Read - Pak SC rejects petition seeking disqualification of Imran Khan

The Chief Justice replied, saying that it was up to the court to decide whether it was satisfied with the documents that were submitted. “… and we are satisfied with the ones we received.”

Last month, the apex court had refused to form a full bench to hear Abbasi’s review petition against the court’s decision to dismiss the disqualification case against Khan, the report said.

Abbasi, in his 13-page review petition, had demanded Khan’s disqualification over non-disclosure of his assets and ownership of offshore companies. The petition stated that now since Khan has become the Prime Minister, the matter was more pertinent for the public.

The original petition, filed by Abbasi in November 2016, had sought Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen and Khan’s disqualification over non-disclosure of their assets and ownership of offshore companies.

It accused the PTI leaders of not declaring their assets to the poll body and violations of the lncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, and Peoples Act, 1974. It also claimed that the PTI was a “foreign-funded” party.

In its December 15, 2017 ruling, the Supreme Court had disqualified Tareen but ruled in favour of Khan.

The Chief Justice had cleared Khan in the case as the petitioner was not directly affected in the foreign funding case.