Mr. Abdul Qadir Abro, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 4. The point which requires consideration is that whether a party filing nomination can be disqualified inter alia on the ground that it has failed to disclose in the nomination paper the disputed property which is disowned by the party in spite of the entry maintained in the revenue record. In this respect the Returning Officer and the District Returning Officer had given finding against the petitioner No. 2 as a result of which the joint nomination form of the petitioners was rejected.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The residential plot which is the property in dispute is claimed by respondent No. 4 to be owned by the petitioner No. 2. This fact has been disputed by the petitioner No. 2 who claims that he is neither owner nor in possession of the said property. The entry in the revenue record is also denied by the petitioner No. 2. We have examined that the petitioner No. 2 in support of his submissions that he is not the owner of the plot has sworn three affidavits of the villagers. In the said affidavits the villagers were resident of the same village have specifically stated that there is no vacant plot in the village Esso Tanwri and the entry in the Deh Form was fabricated. Since no finding can be given on the issue without recording evidence, as the scope of scrutiny is limited and the issue requires evidence therefore, we allow this petition setting aside the impugned order with the observation that such an issue can only be decided by leading evidence. We allow the petitioners to contest the election and the District Returning Officer shall accordingly take steps to ensure that the petitioners participate in the election. However, it will be open to the respondents to approach the Tribunal in Regular Election Petition in case if the petitioners succeed in the elections and the respondents would be at liberty to raise all the questions of their disqualification by Regular Election Petition.