' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---The petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3 contested the Local Bodies Elections, in panels, for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim, respectively, of Union Council No.3, Sahiwal, the petitioners were declared returned candidates and statedly notified as such respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the election petition before the learned Election Tribunal, which was resisted by the petitioners through the written reply. The learned Election Tribunal framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and in the ultimate analysis, accepted the election petition, vide impugned judgment dated 6-1-2007, whereby the election of the petitioners was declared illegal and void as a whole and the Election Commission was directed to hold fresh election. Hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Election Tribunal, only, on the basis of findings rendered in para.20 of the impugned judgment has accepted the election petition, inasmuch as the impugned order is devoid of any reasons. He adds that neither the learned Presiding Officer was summoned nor election record was called for. He has relied upon Muhammad Ali Shah and another v. Election Tribunal (Union Council, No.49, Narhal) District Khanewal and 4 others (2004 CLC 1922), Muhammad Iqbal Hussain and another v. Election Tribunal/senior Civil Judge, Lodhran and 5 others (2007 CLC 134), Amjad Ali Meo and others v.
Election Tribunal and others (2004 SCM R 1063) and Muhammad Naeem Kasi and another v. Abdul Latif and 7 others (2005 SCM R 1699). Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Election Tribunal has rendered his detailed findings in paras.12 to 20 of the impugned judgment, therefore, the impugned judgment is backed by reasons. He adds that all the documents were admitted in evidence and exhibited without any objection from the petitioner' side and that they have not questioned the documentary evidence produced by the respondents.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The respondents produced four witnesses, who deposed, as recorded by the learned Election Tribunal in paras.7 to 11 of the impugned judgment that the petitioners committed illegal and corrupt practices. The respondents also produced certain documents in evidence, which were admitted in evidence without any objection from the petitioners and were exhibited. To rebut the said overwhelming evidence, the petitioners did not produce any evidence and felt contended after having recorded his A statement, thereby simply stating that the election was peaceful and his opponent lost the election by 200 votes. I feel that the learned Election Tribunal, after discussing and adverting to oral as well as documentary evidence, produced by the parties, in paras.12 to 20 of the judgment, has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and decided the matter. To my mind, the learned Election Tribunal, on the basis of the said evidence, has rightly concluded that the petitioners committed illegal and corrupt practices, more so, when respondent's evidence was not rebutted. This Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record, more so, when misreading and non-reading of evidence has neither been alleged nor pointed out.
The learned Election Tribunal has even discussed the impact of ballot papers taken from different polling stations and, after having undertaken exhaustive exercise, has decided the matter. The objection, that the learned Returning Officer was not summoned, has no force in view of the voluminous documentary evidence on record, which itself speaks about the strength of the case of the respondents. It cannot be said that the impugned order is devoid of reasons. I am not persuaded to reverse the cogent reasons and findings rendered by the learned Election Tribunals, which are hereby maintained.
4. Another factor which has dissuaded me from exercising constitutional jurisdiction, which is discretionary and equitable in the matter in hand, is that pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Election Commission on 6-2-2002 notified the program for holding by-election for the vacant seats of Union Nazim/Union Naib Nazim and the parties to the petition have filed their nominations papers to contest the said by-election and polling is to be held on 5-3-2007. The entire constituency is geared up for participating in byelection and they cannot be deprived from exercising of their right of franchise at this stage.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is devoid of merits, hence the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.