2010 C L C 912
[Election Tribunal Quetta]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J
Sardar MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN NASIR ----Petitioner
Versus
Sardar MUHAMMAD ISRAR T AREEN and others ----Respondents
C.M.A. No.903 of 2009 in Election Petition No.8 of 2008, decided on 16th November, 2009.
Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----Ss. 52, 55(3) & 63 ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 15 & S.1 39---Election
petition ---Verification of ---Maintainability of election petition filed by the petitioner had
been challenged on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the mandatory
provisions of S.55(3) of Representation of the People Act, 197 6 and provision of O. VI,
R.15, C.P.C. ---Election petition had not been verified by specifying by reference to the
numbered paragraphs of petition as to what paragraphs of the petition were verified of
petitioner 's own knowledge; and what he verified upon information received and
believed to be true ---Moreover the documents attached with the petition had neither been
signed by the petitioner nor the same had been verified on oath as per requirement of law---
Verification of the petition as well as annexures as was required to be done under the
provisions of O. VI, R.15, C.P.C., having not been done accordingly, case of petitioner had
a fatal defect and petition was required to be dismissed summarily likewise the documents
annexed with the petition ---Petitione r having failed to comply with mandatory provisions
of law, election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Khalilur Rehman and 4 others 2000 SCMR 250;
Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and other v. Syed Hassan Murtaza an d others PLD 2005 SC 600 and
Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another PLD 2007 SC 362 ref.
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed and Ayaz Sawati for Petitioner.
Ch. Ali Muhammad for Respondent No.1.
Iqbal Tareen for Respondent No.6.
ORDER
GHULAM MUSTAFA ME NGAL, J .---Through C.M.A. No.903 of 2009 the respondent
No. a has challenged the maintainability of Election Petition No.8 of 2008 filed by the
petitioner and prayed that since the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provision
of section 55(3) o f the Representation of the People Act, 1976 the Election petition is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed under section 63 of the Act.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the election petition has not
been verified in accordance with the provision of Order VI, Rule 15(2) of, C.P.C. He further
contends that it has not been specified as to what paragraph of the petition has been verified
by the petitioner of his own knowledge and to what paragraph verified upon informati on he
received and believed to be true. He again submits that the oath was neither verified nor
attested by an authorized person to administer oath as per section 139 of C.P.C. and as such it
could not be said that requirement of section 63 of the Act was complied with. He submits
that verification of the documents annexed with the petition neither bear any sort of
verification with or without oath, nor the same bear the signature of the petitioner. He further
submits that non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 63 of Representation
of the People Act, 1976 is a fatal defect to the case and the petition is liable to be dismissed
on these grounds. In support of his submissions the learned Advocate placed reliance on the
following cases:
(i) Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Khalilur Rehman and 4 others 2000 SCMR
250.
(ii) Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others v. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others PLD 2005
SC 600.
(iii) Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another PLD 2007 SC 362.
(iv) Judgm ent dated 8 -5-2009 passed by this Tribunal in Election Petitions Nos.1, 3,
29, 32 and 33 of 2008.
3. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, controverted
the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No.1. He submitted tha t the petition had
been validly and lawfully verified as contemplated under the provision of section 55(3) of the
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. He further submitted that verification was sworn by
the person authorized under the law. In this rega rd a certificate is also attached with the
rejoinder issued by the Oath Commissioner, who has verified the petition. Unless this person
is examined by the Tribunal the question cannot be resolved whether he was appointed as
Oath Commissioner or not. He als o submits that the documents annexed with the petition are
public documents which do not require to be attested and these documents were tendered by
the main witness i.e. representative of NADRA in his statement recorded by this Tribunal.
4. I have caref ully considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel of the parties
and have also gone through the record and found that the petitioner has verified his Election
Petition in the following manner, which is reproduced below: --
"Verification : Verified on oath at Quetta this day 20th March, 2008 that the contents
of petition are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and nothing relevant has
been concealed therefrom."
I would like to reproduce the actual wording of section 55(3) of the Rep resentation of the
People Act, 1976 as under: --
"55. Content of petition .---(3) Every election petition and every schedule or annexure
to that petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), for the verification of
pleadings."
The wording mentioned in the aforesaid section would indicate that the petition is required to
be signed by the petitioner and in addition to such signature the same is required to be
verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant provision of
law is also reproduced as under: --
"Order VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. Verification of pleadings. --(1) Save as otherwise
provided by any law for the time being in force, every p leading shall be verified (on
oath or solemn affirmation) at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading
or by the some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted
with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs or the
pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon
information received and believed to be true.
(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on
which and the place at which it was signed."
It may be pertinent to make respectful reference to the case of Malik Umar Salam v. Sumera
Malik and others (PLD 2007 SC 362) wherein the honourable apex Court held as under: --
"The above v iew has been reiterated in the case of Zafar Abbas (ibid). In this report,
this Court has also examined another aspect of the case relating to directory nature of
verification of pleadings on oath vis -a-vis, the provisions of section 63 of the Act,
1976, w hich prescribes penalty for non -compliance of the provisions of section 55(3)
of the Act, 1976. As according to latter provision of law, Election Petition shall be
dismissed during trial if the provisions of sections 54 and 55 of the Act, 1976 have not
been complied with. As non -compliance of the provision of section 55 particularly,
subsection (3) of the Act, 1976 with reference to the instant case, prescribes a penalty,
therefore, verification on oath and its attestation by an authorized person to adminis ter
the oath has become mandatory."
A perusal of the verification of petition in hand reveals that condition of oath/solemn
affirmation and the attestation thereof is not in accordance with Order VI, Rule 15 of the
C.P.C. The petitioner has failed to giv e reference to the numbered paragraphs of the petition
what paragraphs he was to verify of his own knowledge and that he happened to verify upon
information received and believed to be true. It is an admitted position of the instant case that
the election petition filed by the petitioner has not been verified by specifying by reference to
the numbered paragraphs of petition as to what paragraphs of the petition were verified of his
own knowledge and what he verified upon information received and believed to be true.
Moreover, the documents attached with the petition have neither been signed by the petitioner
nor the same have been verified on oath as per requirement of law. In the circumstances, the
verification of the petition as well as annexures as requir ed to be done under the provision of
Order VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. The instant case has a fatal defect and petition is required to
be dismissed summarily likewise the documents annexed with the petition. The same have
neither been signed by the petitione r nor verified in the manner laid down in the Code of
Civil Procedure.
In view of the above discussion, C.M.A. No.903/2009 is allowed for the reason that the
petitioner failed to comply with the provision of said section and thus election petition is
dismissed.
H.B.T./23/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.