MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- This judgment proposes to decide two constitutional petitions, one in hand and the other Writ Petition No.5293 of .006 as both these raise similar questions of law/facts and require determination of alike controversy. Both these petitions challenged two distinct orders, dated 4-5-2006 passed by the Election Tribunal (respondent No.1) in two different election petitions, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby applications under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by the petitioners in both. The writ petitions were dismissed and the applications for amendment of election petitions filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4, were accepted.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioners in both the writ petitions contested the recent local bodies elections for the offices of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Councils 7 Chak Nos.48/3-R and 95/7, Tehsil and District Okara and were declared successful and were notified as returned candidates. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 in both the writ petitions, challenged the results by filing their respective election petitions before respondent No.1. Writ petitioners filed two separate applications under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of election petitions on the ground that respondents Nos.3 and 4 instead of filing election petitions against the petitioners filed appeals, which are not provided by the Local Government Election Rules, 2005. The other stance of the petitioners was that if the appeals were to be treated as election petitions, the same were not duly signed/verified, as per provisions of Rule 67(3) of the Rules (ibid) without fulfilling the requirements of Order VII, rule 1, C.P.C.
3. On the other hand, respondents Nos.3 and 4 in both the writ petitions, moved their separate applications for amendment of the election petitions and to remove the omissions pointed out by the petitioners. Both the parties filed their replies to the applications filed by their opponents and the learned Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed the applications of the petitioners filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. And accepted that of respondents Nos.3 and 4 through his consolidated order, dated 4-5-2006. Petitioners have now filed the above noted two constitutional petitions with the relief, noted above.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record, appended herewith. Learned Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal though has not properly appreciated ratio of the judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others v. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others PLD 2005 SC 600 and has incorrectly held that the same was not applicable to the case in hand solely on the ground that it was under Representation of Peoples Act, 1976, yet my understanding is that it was fully applicable to the case in hand because no doubt it was given while interpreting E provisions of the Act of 1976 but the underlying principle was that law relating to verification as per Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. On the civil side, was directory because no penal consequences for non-compliance were provided but as far as election petition is concerned this requirement was mandatory because the law applicable provided penal consequences in case of default. Respectfully following the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred case, I opt to examine Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005 and thereunder by dint of Rule 67(3) every election petition and every schedule or annex therewith were to be signed and verified in the manner laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for verification of pleadings. Corresponding provision in the Civil Procedure Code is Order VI, rule 15, which envisages that every pleading has to be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot, by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and this verification has to be by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, deposing what is being verified on knowledge and what on information received and believed to be true.
5. From the above resume consequences, of non-compliance of above referred Rule 67(3) have been given by Rule 72 of the same Rules and hereunder, Tribunal may dismiss an election petition for not following provisions of Rules 67 and 70, thus, compliance of Rule 67 was mandatory. Non- verification of election petition, schedule or annex therewith, would result in consequences given by Rule 72 in form of dismissal of election petition. After holding that verification of election petition according to requirements of Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. Is mandatory, my humble view is that if such defect occurs that is curable because Rule 71(4) of the Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005, equipped the Election Tribunal with the jurisdiction to allow amendment of the election petition in such a manner which in its opinion, be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial and for determining real questions in controversy butt the Tribunal is prohibited from allowing any amendment to raise new grounds of challenging the election. Compass/scope of this provision of the Rule is wider as compared to that of Order VI, rule 17, C.P'.C. The Election Tribunal/respondent No.1 by invoking jurisdiction under Rule 71(4) allowed respondents Nos.3 and 4 to amend their election petitions so as to remove the objection of the petitioners regarding its non-verification. The discretion by the Tribunal could not be demonstrated to have been exercised arbitrarily/fancifully, in any respect and at the same time, by the allowed amendment, no fresh ground to challenge the election was raised.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that provisions of Rule 71(4) amounts to negate penal consequences given by Rule 72 has not impressed me for the reason that those provisions are not self-destructive. In case a petitioner insists for adjudication of his election petition with defective verification or without verification, he has to meet the consequences given by Rule 72 but in case he opts to rectify the defect by showing sufficient cause for the lapse, the same could be cured through a reasoned order by the Tribunal. Scan of record and the impugned order revealed that though approach of the learned Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal was incorrect, yet his conclusion and the net result being fair/justified, cannot be adjudged as prayed.
7. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court could be made out. Even otherwise, lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction cannot be substituted on these petitions, which being devoid of any merit, are dismissed in limine.