1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The relevant facts caused this election dispute between the parties to the revision are that, the petitioner along with the respondent No,4 and one Muhammad Shafa contested the elections held on 13-10-2004 for Union Council Village Askordas Nagar, as per the statement of the count issued by the Polling Officer concerned, the above contesting candidates obtained valid votes as under:--
(1) Muhammad Hand (the petitioner) 64
(2) Muhammad Hussain (the respondent) 90
(3) Muhammad Shafa 100 ' The above statement of the count transpires that Muhammad Shafa was the top scorer of valid votes, while the respondent No,4 was second highest in scoring the valid votes and the petitioner was third in number, but the Returning Officer Constituency No,5 Nagar-I, declared the petitioner and Muhammad Hanif as returned candidates for Union Council Askurdas, showing (0) valid votes in favour of the respondent No,4 in the consolidated statement issued by him on 15th October, 2004 and in the light of the said statement the Election Commissioner Northern Areas notified the result on 2-11-2004 and declared the petitioner as return candidate for Union Council Askurdas along with Muhammad Shafa as the Askurdas was multiple word having two seats. The respondent No,4 challenged the notification dated 2-11-2004 and result of the elections in respect of the Union Council Askordas through Election Petition No,20 of 2004, but during the pendency of the election petition the Election Commissioner Northern Areas modified the Notification No,ELC-3(22)/4, dated 2-11-2004 issued by him and in this regard he issued corrigendum, dated 28-4-2005 and declared the present respondent No,4 returned candidate instead of the present petitioner.
2. ' The present respondent No,4 brought the above corrigendum into the notice of the Election Tribunal and also requested the Tribunal to allow withdrawal of the Petition No,20 of 2004 as he was of the opinion that the Election Commissioner had competently redressed his grievance. The learned Election Tribunal acceded the request and dismissed the petition on 13-6-2005 as withdrawn.
3. ' The present petitioner assailed the corrigendum, dated 28-4-2005, before the learned Election Tribunal through Election Petition No,20 of 2004, with the contention that the corrigendum dated 28-4-2005, was without jurisdiction, ultra vires and void for the reason that the Election Commissioner had ceased to have jurisdiction, to pass any order, corrigendum or notification in connection with the elections, after constituting the Election Tribunal, particularly when the matter was sub judice, before the learned Tribunal between the parties. The present petitioner also prayed for declaring him as returned candidate by setting the impugned order aside. The learned Tribunal after framing issues pro and contra adjudicated the matter finally on merits although declared the corrigendum wrong, but passed the impugned decree in favour of the respondent No,4 by declaring him to be the returned candidate, hence, this revision petition against the impugned judgment/decree, dated 21-12-2005 passed by the learned Tribunal.
4. ' I heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed on the point that the corrigendum, dated 28-4-2005 was without jurisdiction and void. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has agreed upon the legal sanction of the above point and held the corrigendum to be without jurisdiction, but finally has come to an unwarranted and ironical conclusion of law in support of the above version, he invited my judicial notice, towards the finding of the Tribunal on Issues Nos.8 and 10 which is reproduced as under:-- Issues Nos.8 and 10. "In this connection I agreed with the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that once Election Tribunal is appointed, the Election Authorities have no power to pass corrigendums etc. In such a situation where the Election Authorities unearth their mistakes they should furnish the record to the Court in stead of passing corrigendums. In hand also the Election Authorities are party to the case and they must have submitted reply to their petition admitting the version of respondent No,4 if they found some mistake in their results that resulted favourably to the respondent No,4. So the corrigendum is wrong but with remarks that even its cancellation is not useful to the petitioner nor I cancel the same rather I simply declare the same wrong finding accordingly."
5. ' The learned counsel again urged that, the learned Tribunal has erred in law by passing the impugned decree in favour of the respondent No,4 as the election laws do not provide a remedy in favour of respondent except to dismiss the petition if not proved, lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner defended the notification dated 2-11-2004 and prayed for declaring the petitioner returned candidate.
6. ' On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No,4 contended that the impugned corrigendum was well within the jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner, Northern Areas as such the corrigendum is valid. The learned counsel relied on the case-law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case title "The Punjab Local Election Authority Lahore v. Malik Muhammad Aslam and others 1982 SCM R 1086. The learned counsel further urged that the notification dated 2-11-2004 was the result of a clerical mistake of the Election Authorities in the "consolidated statement", while the factual position is that the respondent has won the elections, he also defended the decree passed in favour of the respondent No,4 vide impugned judgment and stated that the Tribunal has not erred in law by passing the same.
7. ' I have gone through the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and of the considered view that the corrigendum dated 28-4-2005, issued by the respondent No,1 is without jurisdiction, ultra vires and void ab initio, for the reason, that the Election Authorities, ceased to have power to issue any order, corrigendum or any notification after completion of election process and after notification of its results, there after the power vests in the Election Tribunal to adjudicate upon the pre or post election disputes arising out of elections between the contesting candidates or against the Election Authorities for violation of election laws etc. In the case in hand not only the Election Tribunal was constituted, but the dispute between the parties was also subjudice before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, issuance of the corrigendum dated 28-4-2005 by the respondent No,1 is not only without jurisdiction, but is an ugly effort to put veil over their own blunders by abusing the law proceedings in the Tribunal. The case-law relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No,4 on the point is no avail for his contention, as it has a different ratio decidendi. I am in consonance with the learned Tribunal that the corrigendum dated 28-4-2005 is without jurisdiction, but very strongly differs with the logic given by the learned Tribunal to allow a void order to remain intact, because an order without jurisdiction or a void order is always void and without jurisdiction which requires to be set aside, without caring, how correct it may be on factual grounds and no party can claim a right on the basis of a void order, I, therefore, declare the corrigendum dated 28-4-2005 passed by the respondent No,1 void without jurisdiction and cancelled.
8. ' At the other end, since the corrigendum dated 28-4-2005 has been declared without jurisdiction and void, as such the notification, dated 2-11-2004 remains intact and operative, particularly when the present respondent No,4 has withdrawn the Petition No,20 of 2004, in reliance on the corrigendum, without going into its merits and competency. While the factual aspect of the notification, dated 2-11-2004 demands its proper judicial scrutiny and examination, for the reasons that the notification and the consolidated statement issued by the Returning Officer are in contradiction with the count statement issued by the Polling Officer concerned, moreover, the Election Authorities might have realized some thing otherwise, that is why, the Election Commissioner issued the impugned corrigendum, but futile and after lapse. This Court has also called the ballot-papers of the Union Council Askurdas and Sumayer and conducted the recount of the valid votes in presence of the parties and their counsel, but I deem it proper to reserve my finding on the point at this junction.
9. ' In presence of the above situation, question arises that the impugned decree, dated 21-12-2005 passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the respondent No,4 can be upheld or it requires to be set aside for want of legal sanction, the answer to this question is that, the impugned decree cannot be upheld for the reasons that no decree in favour of a defendant or respondent can be passed even by the Civil Courts except in money suits, that too when the defendant files a set off or counter-claim, in other cases a suit or appeal may be dismissed, but no specific decree in favour of the defendant or respondent may be passed, further more in the case in hand, the respondent No,4 has withdrawn the Petition No,20 of 2004 unconditionally where in he had assailed the result of the elections and the notification dated 2-11-2004, because of the misconception of the validity of the corrigendum, dated 28-4-2005, which proved to be without jurisdiction, then how and on what basis the impugned decree could be passed in favour of the respondent No,4 in the present petition which has been filed by the present petitioner to assail the said corrigendum, unless the Petition No,20 of 2004 is restored by recalling the withdrawal order, dated 13-6-2005.
10. ' The above peculiar circumstances of the dispute transpire that the legal intricacy resulted out of the withdrawal order, dated 13-6-2005 in the Election Petition No,20 of 2004 and I am of the firm opinion that, the proper occasion, to take judicial notice of the corrigendum by the learned Tribunal, about its legal sanction, was that when the corrigendum was made reason for withdrawal of the Petition No,20 of 2004 by the counsel for the present respondent No,4, obviously the first and foremost responsibility rests on the shoulders of the counsel to safeguard his client from legal complications, but the Courts of law are also not supposed to remain mum like a statue, particularly when it comes to their notice, that some authority has abused the jurisdiction vests in them. The learned Tribunal being the custodian of law, ought to have called the Election Commissioner to explain how and under what provision of law, he passed the corrigendum specially, when the matter was sub judice before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal was also to alert the respondent No,4 about legal consequences of the corrigendum, notwithstanding waiting for being it challenged by the present petitioner before him, hence the learned Tribunal has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity and the said order fosters the cause of substantial justice.
11. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that, I have no any other option, but to recall the withdrawal order, dated 13-6-2005 passed by the learned Tribunal by exercising my supervisory powers under section 115, C.P.C. Suo motu and for that purpose I have already called the record of the Petition No,20 of 2004, therefore, the withdrawal order, dated 13-6-2005, passed by the learned Election Tribunal in the Petition No,20 of 2004 is set aside, parties to this petition are directed to appear before the Election Tribunal to join the proceedings in the Petition No,20 of 2004 on 28-3-2006 and the learned Tribunal is directed to, call the Election Commissioner to record his statement on an earlier fixed date by the Tribunal in the Petition No,20 of 2004, and to dispose the petition within one month. The corrigendum, dated 28-5-2004 and the decree, dated 21-12-2005 passed by the learned Tribunal in this petition is also set aside by partially accepting this petition. The judgment should be read in the Petition No,20 of 2004 too. Parties to the petition to bear their own cost.