2007 PLP 1991 (MLD)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.

Petitioners are returned candidates for the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No.176 Faisalabad. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed an election petition before Election Tribunal/respondent No.1. Petitioners have contested election petition through filing of written reply. During the course of proceedings petitioners moved application for rejection of election petition on the ground that mandatory provisions of Rule 67(3) of Punjab Loeal Government Elections Rules, 2005 have not .been complied with. Non-compliance entails penal consequences. as envisaged in Rule 72 ibid. Respondent No.1 after calling the reply from respondents and hearing the parties, dismissed the application through impugned order, dated 11-3-2006, hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Rule 67(3) of Rules, 2005, provides for signing and verification of election petition, every schedule and annexure. Verification is to be made in a manner as provided in C.P.C. for verification of pleadings. Rule 72 provides for penal consequences of dismissal of the petition for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 67(3). It was added .that election petition and documents annexed with the petitioner are not verified within the contemplation of Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C: Learned counsel has submitted that non-verification of election petition renders it non-maintainable and in this respect referred to the cases of "Sundarzada Zafar Abbas and others v. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others (PLD 2005 SC 600), "Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalil ur Rehman and others" (2000 SCMR 250) and "Abdul Nasir and another v. Election Tribunal Toba Tek Singh (2004 SCMR 602).

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that election petition has been filed after due verification, on oath, according to provisions of C.P.C., besides the election petition is supported by a n affidavit. Learned counsel added that the annexures are attested and signed. Learned counsel went on to argue that the word used in Rule 72 is "may" which leaves it to the discretion of the Tribunal to dismiss the election petition for non-verification. Without prejudice to the above submission learned counsel referred to the case of "Mst. Shehnaz Begum' and 4 others v. Ashiq Hussain. Bhatti" (1995 CLC 327) to contend that procedure are meant for advancement of cause of justice and not for purpose of entrapping litigant. While referring to the case of "Engineer Jamil Ahmad Malik v. Ghulam Sarwar Khan and 6 others (2004 CLC 914) it was contended that documents submitted in support of an election petition do not come within the expression of schedule or annexures. Learned counsel referred to the case of "S.M. Ayub v. Syed Yousaf Shah and others" (PLD 1967 SC 486) to argue that mere defect regarding verification of election petition would not redder the same un-maintainable. Learned counsel then contended that the documents annexed with the petition are certified copies duly authenticated by authorities concerned and have been filed to use the same as pieces of evidence in support of the contentions taken in the election petition, therefore, these documents do not fall within the definition of annexures or schedule and do not rewire the signature or verification by the petitioner and lit view of the official authentication of such documents as certified copies of public record, any further verification and signing by the petitioner of all these documents would be a superfluous .act, not required by law. Learned counsel a these submissions found support from the case of "Hafiz Abdur Rauf Jan v. Bashir Bilour and 6 others" (2004 MLD 244). Learned counsel has submitted that it stands proved through the evidence of P.W.1 (Superintendent Certificate Record Branch of BISE Lahore) that matriculation certificate of petitioner No.1 is bogus. It was lastly submitted that petitioners are raising technical objections to circumvent the process of law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.

5. Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order, examined record and found that election petition is verified on oath by the petitioner (i.e. respondent No.2). Besides the verification, the petitioner has sworn in an affidavit, which is duly attested by the Oath Commissioner, wherein the assertions made in the election petition were verified. The penal provisions as contained in. Rule 72 of Election Rules, 2005 are not attracted to the instant case. Learned Election Tribunal has rightly held so.

6. Petitioners (respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have filed the certified copies of Annexures A, B and C. Petitioners have attested and signed Annexure E. Learned Election Tribunal has rightly observed that election petition cannot be dismissed, on this score. Respondents (herein) have filed written reply and appended all the 'relevant documents including the election petition. Perusal whereof reveals that annexures A, B and C are certified copies issued by competent authority. The documents submitted with the election petition to support the assertions made in it do not come within the expression "schedule" or "annexure". While interpreting subsection (3) of section 25 read with section 63 of the Act (LXXXV of 1976) it has been observed by the apex Court that true import and meaning of words "schedule" or "annexure" is additional allegations of substantive character against other party or better particulars of the .allegations made in petition, so as to give them status of substantial grounds of the petition itself. The documents submitted with election petition do not fall within the meanings of "schedule" or "annexure". The' interpretation that supporting documents do not fall within the connotation of schedule or annexure which stands settled in the case of " S:M. Ayub v. Syed Yousaf" (PLD 1967 SC 486), "Jamil Ahmad Malik v. Ghulam Sarwar Khan" (2004 CLC 914) and "Abdur Rauf Khan v. Bashir Bilour" (2004 MLD 244).

7. It is reflected from the statement of Imtiaz Ahmad; Superintendent Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore that Exh.P.C. is a bogus certificate and candidate who appeared under Roll No. 10753 in Secondary School Certificate Examination (Spring) 1975 is Muhammad Ilyas Bhatti son of Mehr Din and .not Muhammad Ilyas Baig. Petitioners have filed application for rejection of election petition to take refuge, in technical knock out. Filing of application under Order VII Rule I, C.P.C. is mala fide while order impugned is devoid of any illegality or legal infirmity.

8. For the foregoing petition in hand is without ally merit and is dismissed as such, with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./I-46/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.