'IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Briefly the facts are that the petitioner and respondent No,1 had contested the elections of NA-135, Nankana Sahib along with others and respondent No,1 was declared the returned candidate. The petitioner being aggrieved of result of the elections has filed this election petition on various grounds including malpractices. During the pendency thereof, respondent No,1-returned candidate filed C.M. No,3 of 2008 about the maintainability of the election petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfil the provisions of section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 inasmuch the petition does not bear any verification at all and a separate affidavit has also not been filed. The parties were called A upon to address arguments for and against maintainability of the election petition.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No,1-returned candidate contends that election petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which was neither verified by the election-petitioner nor he appeared before the Oath Commissioner to verify the same on oath; that the petition is liable to be dismissed and has placed reliance on Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. Rana Tariq Javed and others 2007 SCM R 34 wherein this defect has been found sufficient to dismiss the petition.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the election petitioner has opposed C.M. No,3 of 2008 filed by respondent No,1 and contends that verification of the petition was merely a technicality and law favours disposal of the cases on merits; that the petitioner has a strong case on merits and he may be allowed to produce the evidence in support thereof.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the petition as well as the case-law on the subject.
5. In the present case neither the election petition was verified as per requirements of Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. Nor any separate affidavit was sworn by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remotely admitted this defect but only submits that the petitioner should not be technically knocked out and the law favours the disposal of the cases on merits. The Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) is a special law and this Court while acting as an Election Tribunal cannot travel beyond the provisions thereof. The superior Courts of this Court in a number of cases have held that election petition not having been filed in compliance with the provisions of section 55(3) of the Act, not accompanied by an affidavit would be liable to be dismissed under section 63 of the Act as the requirement of both the sections was mandatory in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v.
Rana Tariq Javed and others 2007 SCM R 34 wherein the election petition was dismissed taking into consideration these defects by the Election Tribunal and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan maintained the same. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "The Election Tribunal, was thus, justified in holding that no affidavit was annexed to the election petition which admittedly was not verified in accordance with law. As such refusal of the Election Tribunal to place reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Bashir Ahmed Bhanbhan and another v. Shaukat Ali Rajpur and others PLD 2004 SC 570 and relying on the pronouncement made by this Court in the cases of Engineer Zafar Iqbal Jhagra and others v.
Khalil-ur-Rehman and others 2000 SCM R 250 and Sardar Zada Zafar Abbas and others v. Syed Hasan Murtaza and others PLD 2005 SC 600 (supra) that an election petition not having been filed in compliance with the provisions of section 55(3) of the Act, not accompanied by an affidavit would be liable to be dismissed under section 63 of the Act as the requirement of both the sections were held by this Court as mandatory."
' Moreover, in a case titled Malik Omar Aslam v. Sumaira Malik and another PLD 2007 SC 362 the august Supreme Court of Pakistan held that these are mandatory provisions of the Act, 1976 where the noncompliance of provisions of law is penalty. It was further held that notwithstanding while approaching Election Tribunal, petitioner would be bound to fulfil requirement of law including verification of petition in terms of section 55(3) of Act for having prescribed a penalty of dismissal of petition for its non-compliance had become mandatory. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan also held that scheme of the Act, 1976 relating to filing of Election Petition under Chapter VII reveals that the lawgivers, to ensure expeditious decision of election disputes, have authorized the Election Tribunal to regularizes the proceedings itself, instead of following the technicalities of Civil Procedure Code except application of some provisions specifically made applicable for limited purposes. Under section 55(3) of the Act, 1976 it has been made obligatory upon the person, who has challenged the Elections, to verify the same in the manner prescribed for verification of plaint by C.P.C., thus by reference, the provisions of Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. Have been made applicable. As per its provision, every pleading is required to be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one of the parties to pleadings or by some other person to the satisfaction of the Court acquainted with the facts of the case. It was further held that the verification of the pleadings on oath was introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) read with section 6 of the Oath Act, 1873, by adding the words "on oath or solemn affirmation" after the word verified in rule 15(i) of Order VI, C.P.C. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has concluded that, Court of law may pass judgment declaring that the non-fulfilment of mandatory provisions of law is sufficient to dismiss the Election Petition. The relevant portion is reproduced here as under:--- "The, section 63 of the Act, 1976 and section 67 of the Act, 1964 are corresponding to each other namely empowering the Tribunal to dismiss the petition for non-compliance of the provisions of sections 58 and 59 of the Act, 1964 as well. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in pointing out that sections 62 and 63 of the Act, 1976 are independent of each other."
' Even the application for amendment in the pleadings filed by the election petitioner in the said case was dismissed with the following observations:--- "Therefore, we are of the opinion that amendment in the verification clause of the petition was not permissible, as the application was submitted much after the period of limitation i,e, 45 days as provided in section 52(2) of the Act, 1976 for filing of election petition. In addition to it, a right in favour of the respondent has been created, as such we are not persuaded to subscribe the view point of the learned counsel for the appellant."
6. I am of the view that in the context of election laws verification of the petition was not merely a formality and could not be cured later on even by allowing amendment. Section 63 of the Act leaves no option to the Tribunal to allow any such amendment and its absence shall entail in dismissal of the election petition.
7. For the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the preliminary objection taken by respondent No,1 have prevailed and it is a case of sheer non-compliance of an imperative provisions pointed out above and its consequence evidently was nothing but dismissal of the main election petition. Hence, C.M. No,3 of 2008 filed by respondent No,1-returned candidate is accepted and the main election petition is, dismissed accordingly.