2003 PLP 1842 (MLD)
Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus MARVI MAZHAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1842 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus MARVI MAZHAR and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1842 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1842 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1842 (MLD) (Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus MARVI MAZHAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nooruddin Sarki for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Rasool Mangi for Respondent No. 1.
- The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the annexure and schedule were not verified in accordance with the law.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.55(3) & 63
Election petition, dismissal of
Non-verification and attestation of annexures
Plea raised by the returned candidate was that as the annexures were not verified as required under S.55(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1976, the petition was liable to be dismissed
Failure to attach annexures with election petition would not be fatal to the petition if those had not made out any additional allegation of substantive character or had furnished better particulars of the allegations made in the petition
Non-verification of the annexed documents with election petition would not be material for dismissal of the petition
Documents in question were merely in support of contentions/allegations levelled in the election petition
Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
It will be advantageous to reproduce Provision of section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. "55.Contents of Petition:
(1) Every election petition shall contain: (a) A precise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) full particulars of any corrupt or other illegal act alleged to have been committed, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of the commission of such practice or act; and (c) the relief claimed by the petitioner. ??????????? (2) A petitioner may claim as relief any of the following declarations namely:-- (a) that the election of the returned candidate is void; (b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and that the petitioner or some other person has been duly elected; or (c) that the election as a whole is void. (3) 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". The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the annexure and schedule were not verified in accordance with the law. I am of the view that non-compliance of annexure attached with the election petition would not be fatal to election petition if it does not make any additional allegation of substantive character or furnish better particular of the allegations made in the petition. In non-verification of annexed documents with the petition would be material for dismissal of this petition. It would not be fatal to election petition if it does not make any additional allegations of substantive character or furnish better particulars of the allegation made in this petition. They are merely in support of contentions/allegations levelled in the election petition. In view of the above reasons, I am of the view that there is no force in the listed application and same is dismissed. Since the issues have already been framed and the maintainability of the petition has already been questioned, therefore, the office is directed to fix this case for recording of evidence on 9-6-2003. The parties are directed to file affidavit in evidence and exchange the documents before the next date of haring. M.H./M-5637/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.