'GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---Through C.M.A. No,903 of 2009 the respondent No, a has challenged the maintainability of Election Petition No,8 of 2008 filed by the petitioner and prayed that since the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provision of section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 the Election petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed under section 63 of the Act.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has submitted that the election petition has not been verified in accordance with the provision of Order VI, Rule 15(2) of, C.P.C. He further contends that it has not been specified as to what paragraph of the petition has been verified by the petitioner of his own knowledge and to what paragraph verified upon information he received and believed to be true. He again submits that the oath was neither verified nor attested by an authorized person to administer oath as per section 139 of C.P.C. And as such it could not be said that requirement of section 63 of the Act was complied with. He submits that verification of the documents annexed with the petition neither bear any sort of verification with or without oath, nor the same bear the signature of the petitioner. He further submits that noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of section 63 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 is a fatal defect to the case and the petition is liable to be dismissed on these grounds. In support of his submissions the learned Advocate placed reliance on the following cases:--
(i) Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Khalilur Rehman and 4 others 2000 SCM R 250.
(ii) Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others v. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others PLD 2005 SC 600.
(iii) Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik and another PLD 2007 SC 362.
(iv) Judgment dated 8-5-2009 passed by this Tribunal in Election Petitions Nos.1, 3, 29, 32 and 33 of 2008.
3. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate, learned councel for the petitioner, controverted the arguments advanced on behalf respondent No,l. He submitted that the petition had been Validly and lawfully verified as contemplated under the provision of sech n 55(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976 .He further submitted that verification was sworn by the person authorized under the law. In this regard a certificate is also attached with the rejoinder issued by the Oath Commissioner, who has verified the petition. Unless this person is examined by the Tribunal the question cannot be resolved whether he was appointed as Oath Commissioner or not. He also submits that the documents annexed with the petition are public documents which do not require to be attested and these documents were tendered by the main witness i,e, representative of NADRA in his statement recorded by this Tribunal.
4. I have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel of the parties and have also gone through the record and found that the petitioner has verified his Election Petition in the following manner, which is reproduced below:-- "Verification: Verified on oath at Quetta this day 20th March, 2008 that the contents of petition are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and nothing relevant has been concealed therefrom."
' I would like to reproduce the actual wording of section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 as under:-- "55. Content of petition.---(3) Every election petition and every schedule or annexure to that petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings."
' The wording mentioned in the aforesaid section would indicate that the petition is required to be signed by the petitioner and in addition to such signature the same is required to be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant provision of law is also reproduced as under:-- "Order VI, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. Verification of pleadings.--(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified (on oath or solemn affirmation) at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by the some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
' The person verifying shall specify, by reference to 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.
' The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. "
' It may be pertinent to make respectful reference to the case of Malik Umar Salam v. Sumera Malik and others (PLD 2007 SC 362) wherein the honourable apex Court held as under:-- "The above view has been reiterated in the case of Zafar Abbas (ibid). In this report, this Court has also examined another aspect of the case relating to directory nature of verification of pleadings on oath vis-a-vis, the provisions of section 63 of the Act, 1976, which prescribes penalty for non- compliance of the provisions of section 55(3) of the Act, 1976. As according to latter provision of law, Election Petition shall be dismissed during trial if the provisions of sections 54 and 55 of the Act, 1976 have not been complied with. As non-compliance of the provision of section 55 particularly, subsection (3) of the Act, 1976 with reference to the instant case, prescribes a penalty, therefore, verification on oath and its attestation by an authorized person to administer the oath has become mandatory."
'A perusal of the verification of 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 paragraphs he was to verify of his own knowledge and that 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. 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 annexures 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.
' In view of the above discussion, C.M.A. No,903/2009 is allowed for the reason that the petitioner failed to comply with the provision of said section and thus election petition is dismissed.