' In the election held on 10-10-2002 Muhammad Saeed petitioner and respondents contested for PP-124, Sialkot-IV. Tahir Akhtar Malik/respondent No,1 was elected and the petitioner and others remained unsuccessful. He has, thus, filed this election petition under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 to seek declaration that election of respondent No,1 was illegal and void for the grounds stated therein C.M. No,4 of 2003 has been filed by the returned candidate/respondent No,1 herein for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the.
Same does not .Fulfil the mandatory requirements of the law inasmuch as the verification at the end of the petition is not consistent with the provisions of section 55(3) of the Act read with rule 15 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that even the documents annexed with the petition have not been verified.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The learned counsel for the applicant/returned candidate has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Asif Nawaz Fatiana v.
Walayat Shah 2003 CLC 1896 to support his contention that the election petition should be dismissed. The learned counsel for the election petitioner, however, has endeavored to draw distinction with reference to the provisions of Rule 15 of Order IV and Rule 1(2) of Order IV, C.P.C.
3. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and record perused.
4. The election petition bears the verification as below:-- "Verification ' Verified on oath at Lahore this 12th day of November, 2002 that the contents of the petition and those of grounds are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and that nothing has been concealed therein."
' The verification as envisaged by section 55(3) of the Act, has to be in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Sub-Rule (2) of rule 15 of Order VI, deals with verification of pleadings and lays down that:- "(2). The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and belief to be true."
The import and effect of these provisions was dealt with in Asif Nawaz Fatiana's case (supra) with reference to the precedents on the subject and it was held that these were mandatory provisions of special law,- which warranted strict compliance failure whereof was to result in dismissal of the election petition. In Pir Shaukat Hussain Shah v. Tanvir Asla Malik and 2 others PLJ 2004 Lah. 296 the petitioner therein had assailed the election of returned candidate through a similar, petition, which bore the verification as follows:- "Verified on oath at Rawalpindi, this the 20th day of November, 2002 that the contents of the above election petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
' Such verification was found contrary to law and the election petition was dismissed. As to the import and effect of such provisions reference may also be made to Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik v. Ghulam Sarwar Khan and 6 others 2004 CLC 914, by which judgment several petitions were dismissed due to such mandatory defects by a learned Tribunal comprising my learned brother Syed Jamshed Ali, J. An Election Tribunal of Sindh has also taken a similar view in Abdul Rahim Khoso v. Mir Hazar Khan Bijrani 2004 CLC 77. In this view of the matter the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner had no real efficacy, the verification of the election petition being not in accordance with law the election petition is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above, C.M. No,4 of 2003 is allowed, as a result the election petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
' By order of the Chief Election Commissioner.