The stay order will be in force until the case's next hearing, which is scheduled for June 8.
The PTI chief was charged on May 10 after Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar overruled Khan's lawyer’s arguments.
Today, Khan's plea challenging the ruling barring the lower court from further action was heard by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had submitted a complaint asking for criminal charges to be brought against the former premier for failing to provide information on the gifts he received while in office.
Khan’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, contended at the IHC hearing that a district election commissioner, not a competent authority, had filed the charge against his client. He continued by saying that the ECP failed to provide a letter designating anyone as a competent authority.
He said that the ECP simply requested that a complaint be made through its office. The complaint filed without the relevant authorities cannot be heard, he stressed.
The IHC chief justice noted that there are more petitions of a similar sort challenging the interim ruling. "Should this petition be heard as the main petition?" CJ Farooq inquired.
However, Khan's lawyer claimed that there was a problem with the case since a magistrate should have heard it first. He further said that the complaint was submitted after the deadline.
Imran Khan had not responded to the court's inquiries throughout the hearing, according to the order the court issued in the Toshakhana case, which also said that charges had been brought against the accused.
It said that the accused had also declined to sign the charge sheet.
The court also announced that it will be notifying the prosecution witnesses to prepare statements for recording on May 13th. It stated that Imran's attorney had objected to the judge and asked to have the case transferred to any other court.
The lawyer had indicated that they intended to appeal the ruling from May 5, but this court was unable to hear their case until the outcome of the appeal. The decision further said that the defense objected to the court's new location only one day before the hearing.
They had claimed that changing the court's location would impede the administration of justice. Additionally, it stated that the accused had not appealed the May 5 judgment and that no stay had been granted as a result.