1990 PLP 1228 (SCMR)
BHAGWANDAS‑‑Appellant Versus THE RETURNING OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1228 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Saad Saood Jan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and A.S.Salam, JJ |
| Parties | BHAGWANDAS‑‑Appellant Versus THE RETURNING OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1228 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1228 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Saad Saood Jan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and A.S.Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1228 (SCMR) (BHAGWANDAS‑‑Appellant Versus THE RETURNING OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulab M. Rang, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal passed in Election Petition No.37 of 1989, on 19‑11‑1989). ‑‑‑S.67(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court in election matters‑‑‑Types of orders against which appeal is competent‑‑ Held: Only those types of orders as were enumerated in S.67(1), Representation of People Act, 1976, were appealable before Supreme Court‑‑‑Order from which appellant had preferred appeals was not the type of order which could be treated as one falling under such enumeration‑‑‑Appeals thus being incompetent were liable to be dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑These are two appeals under section 67(3), Representation of the People Act, 1976 from the order dated 19‑11‑1989 of the Election Tribunal of Sindh, Karachi.
2. The appellant was successful in the election to the National Assembly from a scat reserved for the non‑Muslims (Hindus/Scheduled Castes). Respondent No.2 who was also a candidate from the said seat but had lost the election, filed an election petition before the Chief Election Commissioner which was in due course referred for trial to the Election Tribunal of Sindh. During the course of hearing of the petition, the appellant moved an application seeking dismissal of the election petition on the grounds that it did not set out the details of the corrupt and illegal practices allegedly committed by him and that the accompanying annexures had not been verified in the manner required by law. On his part, respondent No.2 also filed an application for amendment of the petition in order to get the petition as well as the annexures properly verified. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant but allowed that of respondent No.2. From the order of the learned Election Tribunal, the appellant has preferred these appeals.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that these appeals are not competent. It is to be noticed that the election petition is still pending before the learned Election Tribunal and has not yet been finally disposed of. In the case of Zahid Sarfraz v. Nadir Pervez Khan 1987 SCMR 1107, this Court examined the types of orders from which appeals can be preferred under section 67(3), Representation of the People Act. The view taken was that only such types of orders as were enumerated is section 67(1) of the Act were appealable before this Court. Clearly, the order from which the appellant has preferred these two appeals, is not the type of order which can by any means be treated as one falling under the said enumeration. These appeals are, therefore, incompetent and are hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./B‑153/S Appeals dismissed.