2002 PLP 3148 (YLR)

Muhammad Nawaz Shah for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Nemo for the Retraining Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2002. The petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 and respondents No.4 & 5 contested election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No.69, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were declared returned. The petitioners filed an election petition to challenge the said election on 27‑4‑2001. Several allegations were raised in the petition including the fact that respondent No.2 was not qualified to contest the said election as he was not Matriculate. The petition was contested by respondents No.1 & 2 who filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the election petition. Several issues were framed by the learned Election Tribunal was proceeded to take up the following issue No.1 as preliminary:‑‑ (1) Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR. According to the impugned judgment dated 15‑22002, the following three points were urged by respondents No.2 & 3 in support of the said issue: ‑ (i) Election petition was not presented by the duly authorised person, (ii) Copy of the election petition was not sent to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. (iii) Election petition was not verified in accordance with law. Out of these first two points, in the opinion of the learned Tribunal, could not be taken up at the preliminary stage. He proceeded to discuss the said third objection and to hold that the petition is not verified in accordance with Rule 72(3) of the PLGO Rules, 2000. The petition was accordingly dismissed in terms of Rule 77 of the said Rules.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the election petition was duly verified in accordance with Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. as was the mandate of Rule 72(3) of the said Rules and the learned Election Tribunal has acted without lawful authority in dismissing the petition. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3, on the other hand, with reference to the judgment in the cases Peter Joh Sahotra v. The Returning Officer and 24 others (1995 CLC 687) and Muhammad Azad Gul v. Said Muneer Said and 11 others (1997 CLC 1132) has argued that since the Oath was not administered by an Oath Commissioner, the learned Election Tribunal has correctly dismissed the petition.

3. I have examined the copy of the election petition accompanying this writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that it has been verified by the petitioner as follows:‑‑ "Verified on oath at Gujrat on 27‑4‑2001 that the contents or above petition and the documents relied upon are correct to the best of our knowledge and belief." I may note here that similar verification is appended to the written statement filed by respondents No. 2 &

3. The burden of Rule 72(3) of the said Rules is that the election petition has to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Order VI Rule 15 lays down the following manner of verification of the pleadings:‑‑‑ (i) Every pleading shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. (ii) The person verifying shall specify by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading what he verifies of his own knowledge and that he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.