' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The relevant facts have been noted in our previous order dated 8-5- 2014. The said order for ease of reference is reproduced as under:-- "This is an election appeal arising from General Elections held on 11-5-2013 for National Assembly Constituency No,199 (Pannu Aqil, etc). The appellant and respondent No,1 were amongst the twenty candidates who contested the said election. For the purpose of the present appeal, the appellant and respondent No,1 appeared as the only contending parties. The other respondents have not appeared despite notice and are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
(2) Respondent No,1 was declared as a returned candidate by the Election Commission of Pakistan having secured approximately 86,800 votes. The appellant was the runner up having secured about 52,000 votes. The appellant filed an election petition to challenge the election of respondent No,l. The petition, however, was dismissed for reasons which have been noted in the impugned judgment. Firstly, it was held by the Election Tribunal that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of section 54(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (the Act) inasmuch as service of the petition as required under the said statutory provision had not been made. In this respect, it may be noted that section 54(b) of the Act requires the election petition to be served either personally or through registered post on the respondents/contesting candidates.
It appears that the Election Petition was neither served personally on respondent No,1 nor was it sent through registered post. Although the Election Tribunal has proceeded on considerations which are somewhat different from the requirements of the aforesaid statutory provision, this will be an issue in the present appeal. Secondly, the Election Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the election petition had not been verified on Oath as required by section 55(3) of the Act.
(3) Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that even though the verification had not been made on Oath before the Oath Commissioner at the foot of the petition itself an affidavit had been filed which bore the attestation of the Oath Commissioner. Learned counsel representing the respondent No,1, at this stage, has pointed out that the contents of the affidavit referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant were in certain aspects different from the contents of the election petition itself. On this basis, he contended that verification of the affidavit could not be construed as verification of the petition under section 55(3) of the Act.
(4) Faced with the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant requested for some time to examine the law on the subject, including precedents of this Court to support his challenge to the impugned judgment rendered by the Election Tribunal."
2. We have heard this case at length and have examined the original record of the Election Tribunal. Considering the contents of section 54(b) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976 (The Act), the undeniable position which emerges from the record is that the Election Petition was not served on the nineteen (19) respondents by the appellant Inayatullah personally. It is also clear from the record and indeed it has not been urged before us that the copy of the petition was served on the respondents through registered post. The question, therefore, which remains is whether the courier service employed by the appellant could be construed as service effected on the respondents by the appellant personally.
3. Considering the provisions of the various statutes including the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) the distinction between personal, service/appearance etc. And appearance/service etc. Through an agent is well recognized. The courier service can at best be treated as an agent of the appellant.
Service through an agent, keeping in mind the similar provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and other statutes will not constitute service effected personally. As far as service through registered post is concerned, that has not even been claimed by the appellant. In any event, the Postal Service of Pakistan has been created under the Post Office Act, 1898. There are a number of courier services operating in Pakistan. Our research staff has accessed reports which show that legislative efforts are a foot to regulate the services of couriers. As a result, the Pakistan Private Courier Regulatory Bill, 2012, was prepared. However, the said Bill has not become a law. In any event, service through registered post raises statutory presumptions in the ordinary course. No such presumption attaches to service through courier. Learned counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to argue that service through courier could be considered valid on the ground of practice and usage. This plea is not legally tenable in view of the express wording of the Act.
3(sic.) The second issue relates to the verification of the Election Petition which was filed by the appellant before the Election Tribunal. We have seen the original record and from the same it is apparent that the petition was sent to the respondents through courier on 18-6-2013. In this view of the matter, the verification of the affidavit of service, is patently incorrect. Likewise, the verification of the affidavit annexed with the petition is incorrect for the same reason. The rubber stamp of the Oath Commissioner wherein blank spaces have been filled show that the affidavit was sworn on 17-6-2013. However, the attestation has been made on 18-6-2013. The verification on the petition itself, for whatever it is worth, also states 'in its body that the verification was made on 17th June, 2013, but this verification is also incorrect bearing in mind that the copy of the Election Petition was sent to the respondents on the following day i,e, 18-6-2013. The affidavit of service which has been signed by the appellant states on oath "that before filing of petition [appellant] [sic] have served it to the respondents through notice by courier, the receipts of those are appended herewith". This statement has been verified on 17-6-2013 and the attestation has also been made on 17-6-2013.
This affidavit of service is itself belied and rendered false by the courier receipts which show that the copy of the petition was sent on 18-6-2013 and not on 17-6-2013.
4. In view or the above discussion, this appeal has no merit. The same is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.