2000 PLP 946 (YLR)
ABDUL LATIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/
| Citation | 2000 PLP 946 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 946 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 946 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 946 (YLR) (ABDUL LATIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Arif Alvi for Petitioner.
- Arshad Ali Chohan for Respondent No.2.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case ‑ of Abdul Aziz Khan v. Abdur Rehman and others (PLD 1985 Lahore 203) argues that the objections raised by his client were formidable and law prescribes a penalty for the non‑observance of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Local Council (Election Petition) Rules, 1979. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the objections raised were frivolous. So far as the objection to deposit is concerned, the matter was earlier brought to this Court in Writ Petition No. 11453 of 1998 and the point was determined against the petitioner. Regarding the matter of delivery of advance copy states that there is evidence on record to the effect that the copy was so delivered. Vis‑a‑vis the matter of verification supports the impugned order with reference to the case of Ch. Riffat Hussain v. Asif Khan (PLD 1980 Lahore 626).
- 3. After hearing the learner. counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the private respondent. I find that respondent No.1 has recorded a positive finding with reference to the record that the advance copy of the election petition was sent to the petitioner and that the requisite deposit was in fact made by respondent No.2, before filing the election petition. A glance on the grounds raised in the body of the writ petition would also show that the said findings are not seriously questioned by the petitioner. So far as the question of verification of the petition is concerned, it is by now a well‑settled proposition that the matter of signing or verifying the pleadings is not such as would affect the merits of a particular case and that pleadings can be signed or verified at any time. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 informed that an application to do the needful has already been moved before respondent No. 1. In my opinion even a formal application is not necessary and respondent No.2 can verify the contents of the petition without any formal order. He will be allowed to do, so by respondent No. 1. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is distinguishable. In the said case, the Election. Tribunal had opted to exercise the discretion against the election petitioner. It was in that context that this Court observed that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to refuse to exercise his discretion in favour of the election petitioner. On the same analogy, I hold that respondent No. l had the jurisdiction to exercise the discretion in favour of respondent and I do not find any reason to E interfere with the same. Learned Law Officer also supports the order of respondent No. 1. No other point has been urged. The writ petition is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr.3, 4 & 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Unsigned and unverified election petition ‑‑ Effect‑‑‑Petitioner/returned candidate filed objections on the election petition filed by the respondent/candidate that election petition was not verified in the manner prescribed, advance copy of petition was not delivered and the same was filed without statutory deposit‑‑‑Election Tribunal dismissed the objection petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Record had established that advance copy was delivered and the statutory deposit was made by candidate and the signing or verifying of the pleadings was not such as would effect the merits of the case‑‑‑Order of Tribunal was not without jurisdiction in circumstances and the same was not to be interfered with. Abdul Aziz Khan v. Abdur Rehman and others PLD 1985 Lah. 203 and Ch. Riffat Hussain v. Asif Khan PLD 1980 Lah. 626 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. VI, Rr. 14 & 15‑‑‑Pleadings‑‑‑Non signing or non‑verifying the pleadings is not such an omission as to affect the merits of case and the same can be signed or verified subsequently. Ch. Riffat Hussain v. Asif Khan PLD 1980 Lah. 626 ref. Khadim Nadeem Malik, Addl. A.‑G. (on Court's call).
Judgment & Decree
Respondent No.2 filed an election petition against the petitioner, which is pending before respondent No.
1. The petitioner filed a written statement to the election petition on 25‑7‑1998. Thereafter, an application was filed by him on 20‑3‑1999 alleging that respondent No.2 has not delivered advance copy of the election petition; that the petition has not been verified in the manner prescribed; and that the petition has been filed without statutory deposit. This application was contested by respondent No.2. Vide the impugned order, dated 21‑6‑1999, respondent No.2 found as a fact that the advance copy had been sent to the petitioner and that the deposit was duly made by him before filing the petition. In respect of the objection pertaining to verification, respondent No.l held that the defect was not such as to effect the merits of the matter. Resultantly, the said application was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the case ‑ of Abdul Aziz Khan v. Abdur Rehman and others (PLD 1985 Lahore 203) argues that the objections raised by his client were formidable and law prescribes a penalty for the non‑observance of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Punjab Local Council (Election Petition) Rules, 1979. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the objections raised were frivolous. So far as the objection to deposit is concerned, the matter was earlier brought to this Court in Writ Petition No. 11453 of 1998 and the point was determined against the petitioner. Regarding the matter of delivery of advance copy states that there is evidence on record to the effect that the copy was so delivered. Vis‑a‑vis the matter of verification supports the impugned order with reference to the case of Ch. Riffat Hussain v. Asif Khan (PLD 1980 Lahore 626).
3. After hearing the learner. counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the private respondent. I find that respondent No.1 has recorded a positive finding with reference to the record that the advance copy of the election petition was sent to the petitioner and that the requisite deposit was in fact made by respondent No.2, before filing the election petition. A glance on the grounds raised in the body of the writ petition would also show that the said findings are not seriously questioned by the petitioner. So far as the question of verification of the petition is concerned, it is by now a well‑settled proposition that the matter of signing or verifying the pleadings is not such as would affect the merits of a particular case and that pleadings can be signed or verified at any time. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 informed that an application to do the needful has already been moved before respondent No.
1. In my opinion even a formal application is not necessary and respondent No.2 can verify the contents of the petition without any formal order. He will be allowed to do, so by respondent No.
1. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is distinguishable. In the said case, the Election. Tribunal had opted to exercise the discretion against the election petitioner. It was in that context that this Court observed that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to refuse to exercise his discretion in favour of the election petitioner. On the same analogy, I hold that respondent No. l had the jurisdiction to exercise the discretion in favour of respondent and I do not find any reason to E interfere with the same. Learned Law Officer also supports the order of respondent No.
1. No other point has been urged. The writ petition is dismissed.
4. I find that the election petition is pending since the last more than one year. Respondent No.l shall proceed in the matter expeditiously and see to it that the same is decided in accordance with law before 30‑11 1999 under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court. A copy of this order be sent to respondent No. 1 for compliance. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑153/L Petition dismissed.