A dismissed Petition can be restored
PLJ 2009 Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court
This case was about whether an election petition that had been dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear in court could later be restored and heard on its merits.
Syed Fakhar Imam had filed an election petition, but it was dismissed on 20 June 2008 when neither he nor his lawyer was present, due to a mix-up about when the case would be called by the Tribunal. He then applied for restoration, explaining through affidavits that his counsel had been misinformed about the timing and had come to court both before and after the case was actually taken up.
The key legal question was whether the Election Tribunal, under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, had the power to restore a petition dismissed in default, even though the Act does not expressly provide for this. The petitioner's lawyers argued that since the Tribunal has all the powers of a civil court, and since general legal principles allow courts to do what is necessary to further justice even without express provision, restoration should be permitted. They also argued the petition could not have been validly dismissed under Section 76 because the trial had not yet begun.
The Tribunal accepted these arguments, noting the returned candidate never contested the restoration application despite being served, the explanation for the absence was genuine, the petition for restoration was filed promptly, and the case was still at an early stage. The petition was restored, confirming that Election Tribunals can revive dismissed election petitions when there are genuine and sufficient reasons, protecting litigants from losing their case over procedural mishaps.
یہ مقدمہ اس سوال سے متعلق تھا کہ آیا ایک الیکشن پٹیشن، جسے درخواست گزار کی عدالت میں پیشی نہ ہونے کی بنا پر خارج کر دیا گیا تھا، بعد میں بحال کر کے میرٹ پر سنی جا سکتی ہے یا نہیں۔
سید فخر امام نے ایک الیکشن پٹیشن دائر کی تھی، لیکن 20 جون 2008 کو یہ پٹیشن اس وقت خارج کر دی گئی جب نہ تو وہ خود اور نہ ہی ان کا وکیل عدالت میں موجود تھا، جس کی وجہ ٹریبونل کی جانب سے مقدمہ پکارے جانے کے وقت کے بارے میں ایک غلط فہمی تھی۔ اس کے بعد انہوں نے پٹیشن کی بحالی کے لیے درخواست دی اور حلف ناموں کے ذریعے وضاحت کی کہ ان کے وکیل کو مقدمے کے وقت کے بارے میں غلط معلومات دی گئی تھیں اور وہ مقدمہ درحقیقت سنے جانے سے پہلے اور بعد میں، دونوں اوقات میں عدالت میں حاضر ہوئے تھے۔
بنیادی قانونی سوال یہ تھا کہ کیا الیکشن ٹریبونل کو، نمائندگیِ عوام ایکٹ 1976 کے تحت، کسی ایسی پٹیشن کو بحال کرنے کا اختیار حاصل ہے جو عدم حاضری کی بنا پر