2007 PLP 2610 (YLR)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-2-2007 whereby a learned Single Judge in Chambers, allowed-the Writ Petition No.10567 of 2006 and declared order dated 27-2-2007, passed by 'the Election Tribunal without lawful authority and illegal.

2. The appellants as well as respondents Nos.1 to 6 contested elections for Nizam and Naib Nizam, Union Council No.52, Rural Harnoli, Tehsil Piplan, District Mianwali. The respondents were declared successful. Aggrieved thereof the appellants/petitioners filed an Election Petition challenging this election. During the course of these proceedings .the appellants, filed an application praying that they be permitted to verify the Election Petition, as ordained by law. After contest application was allowed and appellants permitted to amend the petition as prayed for.

3. Aggrieved thereof respondent No.1 filed a Constitutional Petition No.10562 of 2006"titled Malik Muhammad Surkhru v. Malik Muhammad Ehsan and others. This petition was allowed and as a consequence the Election Petition was dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order is not in. consonance with law, the appellants had duly .verified the Election Petition and the annexures as ordained by law, he however, made an application seeking permission only to get verification attested on Oath, ordained, as such no :amendment was made, the. petition was duly verified (initially), therefore, the impugned order is not in consonance with law, further the impugned order does not address the real issue, and has limited the findings only to verification of the pleadings and its ramifications, the real issue qua amendment was not attended. To fortify his contention he relied on the following precedents. (1) Mian Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Election Tribunal for District Okara/District Judge, Kasur and 5 others (2006 CLC 1426). (2) Abdul Nasir and another v. Election Tribunal, Toba Tek Singh and others (2004 SCMR 602). The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the dispute was narrowed only to the controversy qua verification and amendment made therein. Therefore, the issue has been fully addressed, as such the impugned order be not interfered with. He relied on Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another (PLD 2007 SC 362) to submit that non-verification of the Election Petition and Annexures is fatal as improper attestation on Oath and is to be visited with penalty, therefore, the .impugned order is unexceptionable.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents at length.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted with vehemence that he, stricto senso did not pray for amendment of verification but only made a prayer seeking attestation on Oaths as required, in law, therefore, the penal provisions as enunciated are in-applicable to his cause, precedent referred to supra (PLD 2007 SC 362) relates to representation of the People Act, 1976 and not to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, by which the appellant is governed.

7. The basic issue which needs adjudication in the present dispute is the effect of .non-verification/attestation of Election Petition and annexures as mandated by law.

8. It stands established from the record and as per showing of the learned counsel for the appellants, that verification, though made, was not in consonance with the requirements of law as enunciated, as admittedly it was not attested as required by law. The question is whether this lapse is fatal and is to be visited with penalty or not the matter stands decided by the apex Court in Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another (PLD 2007 SC 362) as it has been held that verification of Election Petition on Oath and its attestation by an authorized person, to administer Oath is mandatory, and its non-compliance entails penalty, therefore, on the touchstone of this judgment the impugned order of the learned C Single Judge in Chambers of this Court is unexceptionable. The last objection of the learned counsel that the judgment referred relates to the Representation of People Act, 1976 and not to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 is also not tenable. The provisions contained in section 55(3) of the People Act, 1976 and. the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005. The relevant provisions of Punjab Local Government Rules are 67(3) which reads:-- "Every election petition and every schedule or annex 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". Rule 72(a} reads:-- "the provisions of rules 67 and 70 have not been complied with; or" The procedure for verification in pleadings is contained in Order VI, rule 15 and reads:-- "Verification of pleadings.

(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleadings 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. (2) The person verifying shall specify the reference to the numbered paragraphs of 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." The corresponding provisions contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are section 55(3) which reads:-- "Every election petition and every schedule or annex 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". Section 63(a) reads:-- "The provisions of section 54 or section 55 have not been complied with; or Therefore, the provisions .are similar and identical, in fact the language in the latter Statute (Local Government Ordinance Elections Rules) has been D practically borrowed from the earlier one (Rep. of People Act). The enactments are pari materia, therefore, they are required to be interpreted in a harmonious manner. As such the precedent referred in Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another (PLD 2007 SC 362) is fully applicable to the instant cause, therefore; attestation as required by law was mandatory, non-adherence to it, is thus fatal to the cause of the appellant. Resultantly this appeal has no merits and. is dismissed. S.A.K/M-352/L Appeal dismissed.