' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Instant appeals have been filed against the judgments dated 8-5-2009, 16-11-2009 and 14-12-2009 passed by the Election Tribunal, Balochistan, whereby Election Petitions No,16 of 2008, 8 of 2008 and 13 of 2008 filed by the appellants under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act 1976, were dismissed.
2. Marshalling of facts of each appeal in detail is not called for as points involved in all the matters somehow are identical, therefore, it would be sufficient to observe that appellants having lost elections of the Provincial Assembly, PB-20 (in Civil Appeal No,79 of 2009), PB-27 (Civil appeal No,01 of 2010) and National Assembly NA-263 (in Civil Appeal No,1401 of 2009) in general election held on 18th February, 2008, instituted election petitions, which were ultimately placed before the. Election Tribunals but were dismissed for the, following reasons in each case:-- Civil Appeal No,79-Q of 2009: "Though the petition does contain at the end verification clause which has been signed and verified on oath but same was not in accordance with the provision of Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C., providing that the persons verifying shall specify by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings what he verifies is in the knowledge and what he verifies on his information received and believed to be true as such is defective"
Civil Appeal No,1401 of 09: "A --- A perusal of the verification of the petition in hand reveals that condition of oath/solemn affirmation and the attestation thereof is not in accordance with Order-VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. The petitioner has failed to give reference to the numbered paragraphs of the petition what he happened to verify upon information received and believed to be true. It is an admitted position of the instant case that the election petition filed by the petitioner has not been verified by specifying by reference to the numbered paragraphs of petition as to what paragraphs of the petition were verified of his own knowledge and what he verified upon information received and believed to be true. B --- Moreover, the documents attached with the petition have neither been signed by the petitioner nor the same have been verified on oath as per requirement of law. In the circumstances, the verification of the petition as well as annexure as required to be done under the provision of Order-VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. The instant case has a fatal defect and petition is required to be dismissed summarily likewise the documents annexed with the petition. The same have neither been signed by the petitioner nor verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure.
' Civil Appeal No,01 of 2010: Admittedly the petitioner has failed to give reference to the numbered paragraphs of the petition what paragraphs he was to verify of his own knowledge and what he happened to verify upon information received and believed to be true. Similarly the documents attached with the petition have not been signed/verified on oath as per requirement of law."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the objection prevailed upon the Election Tribunal for rejecting the election petitions calls for interference in view of the law laid down by this Court on the subject reported in the case of Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalilur Rehman (2000 SCM R 250), Bashir Ahmed Bhanbhan v. Shaukat Ali Rajpur (PLD 2004 SC 570) and Sardarzada Zafar Abbas v. Syed Hassan Murtaza (PLD 2005 SC 600). It was also contended by him that in these judgments implications of Order-VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. Relate to verification of pleadings, disclosing number of paragraphs, which were correct as per the knowledge of the appellants and the remaining paras in respect whereof he has been given to believe that contents were correct.
Likewise non-signing of the documents according to subsection (3) of section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had been the subject matter of the petitions. According to him question relating to interpretation of the provision of law has already been settled, therefore, on setting aside the impugned judgments, cases be sent back to the Election Tribunal.
4. Ch. Ali Muhammad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeal No,1401 of 2009 contended that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions as it had not been presented before it after complying with the mandatory provision of law, non- compliance of which, according to him, surely entailed the consequences, on the basis whereof election petitions had rightly been dismissed. He also contended that the appellant had not placed all the documents, which were required to be signed and verified according to the C.P.C. As only the public documents had been annexed with the petitions whereas so many other documents were filed before the Election Tribunal, which were neither signed nor verified, therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment was called for.
5. Mr. Amanullah Kanrani, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in Civil Appeal No,01 of 2010 stated that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel were not applicable in view of the latest judgment of this Court in the cases of Amar Lal v. Ishwar Das (2007 SCM R 1776) and Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 SC 362).
6. No one entered appearance in Civil Appeal No,79-Q of 2009 despite issuing notices on 2-4-2010, 21-6-2010 and 30-7-2010.
7. We have heard the parties' counsel and have gone through the pleadings of the parties, impugned judgments/orders of Election Tribunal, relevant laws on the subject and precedents of this Court relied upon by the counsel for the parties.
8. It is well-settled that question of law, pronounced or declared by this Court in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution has binding effect on all the functionaries, both executive and particularly the judicial authorities. The superior Courts, Tribunals have obligation to implement and adhere to the judgment of the Supreme Court. We feel no hesitation in holding that the Election Tribunal, perhaps on account of non-availability of proper assistance, proceeded to decide the cases against A the appellants for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. This Court in the case of Bashir Ahmed Bhanbhan (supra) has settled the question with regard to verifying the pleadings notwithstanding the numbered paragraphs or the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. This provision of law in fact cannot be considered to be mandatory as a person can verify the paras in the pleadings on his own knowledge without verifying any para upon receipt of the information, same are believed to be true. Directly such question has been attended in another judgment in the case of Sardarzada Zafar Abbas v. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others (PLD 2005 SC 600). Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "Learned counsel for the respondent raised another objection that the election petitioners in their verifications have failed to give reference to the paragraphs of the pleading as to what he either happened to verify on his own knowledge and what he happened to verify upon information received and believed to be true. Such objection is not very material because at times the entire statement happens to be given on the basis of one's knowledge and at time on the basis of information received. It depends upon the facts of each case, as to what category the assertions belong. The situation is likely to differ from case to case."
9. Now turning towards the judgment, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel in the case Malik Umar Aslam; (ibid) it is to be noted that in this case the question with regard to non- verifying pleadings on oath was under consideration because the pleadings have not been attested by the person competent to administer the oath. The instant question relates to mentioning the numbers of paragraphs of the pleadings what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true, therefore, the contentions raised in this behalf by the learned counsel for the respondent have no substance, as such the same are repelled.
10. Second limb of the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents, particularly, Chaudhry Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court, is his emphasis upon the strict adherence of subsection (3) of section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. A larger Bench of this Court comprising seven Hon'ble Judges had an occasion to examine the question of verifying every schedule or annexure of the petition in the manner laid down in the procedure of Civil Code according to subsection (3) of section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 in the case of Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalilur Rehman (2000 SCM R 250) and declined to interfere in the judgment of the Election Tribunal, which has refused to dismiss the Election Petition on the ground of non- compliance of corresponding provision under section 36 of the Senate (Election) Act (LI), 1975. To further elaborate the point involved in this case, it would be appropriate to note that in Zafar Iqbal Jhagra's case learned Tribunal declined to dismiss the election petition because some of the annexures filed along with it were not verified on oath, holding that annexures have admittedly not been verified on oath but the omission is not fatal as annexure neither go to the root of the allegations nor disclosed any additional allegation of substantive character or furnish better particulars of allegations made in the petition. The view formed by the Tribunal as well as this Court is based on the earlier case of S.M. Ayub v. Yousaf Shah (PLD 1967 SC 486).
11. As far as arguments of Ch. Ali Muhammad, learned counsel for the respondent relating to non- verifying the documents, which cannot be considered as public documents, as according to him this was mandatory provision of law, it is to be noted that in the application filed by the respondent, objection was raised for non-verifying of the annexure (documents annexed with the petition) which are included both public and private documents and learned Tribunal had not made any distinction in both the categories and accepted the application, consequently the election petition was dismissed but in the judgments, which have been relied upon in the cases of S.M. Ayub and Engineer Zafar Iqbal Jhagra, (Supra) there was also no distinction in both kinds of 'the documents.
Thus, the argument in this behalf raised by the learned counsel has no force.
12. No other point was argued by any of the learned counsel for the parties. Thus, the appeals are allowed and the cases are sent back to the B Election Tribunal, Balochistan.
13. These are the detailed reasons of our order of even date, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- ' For the reasons to be recorded later, appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments passed by the Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta are hereby set aside. The election petitions (cases) are sent back to the Election Tribunal of the Province of Baluchistan, which has passed the impugned judgments, for further proceedings/decision in accordance with the law, expeditiously following the amended provision of section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced as under:-- "Provided that where a petition is not decided within four months, further adjournment sought by any party shall be granted only on payment of special cost of ten thousand rupees per adjournment and adjournment shall not be granted for more than three days."
' This amended provision has also been discussed in the case of Malik Muhammad Usman Achakzai (Civil Appeal No,68-Q of 2009).
' Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.