Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, J.--With a view to contest the General Elections of 2013 from the Constituency of National Assembly No, 46 (Tribal)-XI, Khyber Agency Mr. Hamidullah Jan herein respondent, Nasir Khan herein appellant alongwith 23 others submitted their nomination papers. At the time of scrutiny , the respondent raised objection on.The nomination paper of the, appellant to the effect that he has concealed material facts detrimental to his nomination and has made false declaratio n in his nomination paper .. According to him Nasir Khan has shown less price of property owned by him as well, as concealed the fact about his own and his dependants property and also concealed the fact about his involvement in the narcotics ease, registered against him at Karachi. The appellant denied all the objections, except his involvement in the narcotics case, however squealed his acquittal in the said case by learned Judge, Special Court CNS-1 vide order dated 12.12.2012 at Karachi. The Returning Officer (Assistant Political Agent) Bara rejected the nomination paper of the appellant on the ground of concealment the fact about his involvement in the criminal case registered against him vide FIR No, 06/2005 dated 17.4.2008 under Section 6/9 CNSA of Police Station CNS-1 Karachi. The order of Returning Officer was assailed before the Election Appellate Tribunal/Pesh.A war High Court, Peshawar through Election Appeal No, 65, which was accepted vide order dated 11.4.2013 and the appellant Wai allowed to contest the election. Resultantly the parties contested the election against the above. Mentioned seat, wherein the appellant by securing 4135 votes, was declared as returned candidate, whereas the Respondent No, 17, on securing 3579 votes was declared runner up. The respondent, dis-satisfied with the result of election, filed Election Petition under Section 52 of the Representation of PeOple Act, 1976 (hereinafter called "ROP A Act"), before the Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan at Islamabad which, after scrutiny was trans mitted to the Tribunal under Section 56 of the ROP A Act for trial vide order dated 21.8.2013. The appellant and Respondent No, 17 contested the elect ion petition through filing their respective written statements. At the initial stage the appellant filed application for summarily dismissal of election petition on the grounds that:-
(i) That the petitioner has not disclosed any corrupt or illegal practice or any illega l act allegedly committed by the returned candidate;
(ii) That no date time and place of the commission of such practice or act has been mentioned in the election petition as required under Section 55(i) (6) of the Act, 1976.
(iii) That from the contents of Election Petition of petitioner the election of returned candidate cannot be declared as void.
(iv) That the petitioner has not filed the petition as required under Section 55(3) of the Act, 1976, hence on this score alone the petition is liable to be dismissed."
2. The application was contested by the respondents which was ultimately dismisse d, vide order dated 31.10.2013, while the election petition was listed on 4.11.2013 for framing of issues. After recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, the learned Election Tribunal allowed the election petition vide order dated 25.3.2014 and election of the Appellant No, 1 was declared void and the Election Commission was directed to hold fresh election in the said constituency in accordance with law .
3. Being aggrieved with the aforementioned judgment the appellant filed Civil Appeal No, 511 of 2014 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan which was placed before the hon'ble Bench on 10.4.2014 wherein notices were issued to the respondents, however , the Respondent No, 1, being present in person before the Court accepted notice and offered no objection on granting interim relief to the appellant in terms of staying the fresh election. In the meanwhile, in another appeal pending adjudication before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the question of maintainability of direct appeal to Supreme Court of Pakistan was raised which was set at naught vide judgment dated 29.5.2014 and the appeal was returned to the appellant for presenting before proper forum. On the anology of the above mentioned case, the memo. Of instant appeal was returned to appe llant vide order dated 24.6.2014 subject to all legal objections. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the worthy Tribunal has fallen into error by entertaining incompetent appeal being filed for non-compliance of mandatory provision of Sections 54 and 55 of the ROP A, 1976. The respondents have not verified the election petition on oath in the manner prescribed under the provision of Order-VI Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code and Section 55(3) of ROP A Act. When the law require a particular thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done accordingly , otherwise it would not be in compliance with the legislative intent.
The record annexed with the election petition being photo copies having not attested and verified in the manner laid down in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would entail dismissal of Election Petition at the threshold. He referred to Rule-15 of Order-VI according to which 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 some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. He further argued that the worthy Election Tribunal while defeating the appellant has given much strength to the alleged admission in the pre-election proceedings about concealment of fact regarding pendency of criminal case whilst such admission in the previous proceedings cannot be used against the litigant in subsequent proce edings unless he is confronted with the admission made in previous proceedings. Without complying with the procedure laid down in Article 140 of Qanon-e-Shahadat Order , the admission contained in the previous proceedings cannot be used as legal evidence against the appellant. He went on to say that the respondent has based his election petition before the Election Tribunal mainly on the ground of involvement of the appellant in narcotics case, however , he failed to produce an iota of evidence on record to show his nexus with the above noted case. Undisputedly the name of appellant is not figured in the alleged FIR nor the respondent has proved his indictment in such a case. The alleged copy of FIR and challan are photostat copies being not produced before the worthy tribunal from safe hands i,e, concerned officials, therefore, not admissible in evidence whereas the learned trial Court by placing reliance on inadmissible documents for deseating the appellant, has committed serious illegality and irregularity . He argued that the learned Election Tribunal has landed in. The field of error, while dilating upon the issue with regard to concealment of assets and false declaration by the appellant about his personal property before the Returning Officer. During entire evidence the respondent could not point out a single instance showing any concealment or non-declaration of assets, while the learned Election Tribunal has based its findings on mere presumption and assumption. While greeting his . Arguments, the learned counsel reiterated that the appellant has disclosed his entire agricultural and resid ential property in his nomination paper . In fact all the property and assets belonging to appellant and his dependent are situated in tribal terrirtory , which is non-taxable area, therefore, question of concealment of assets would not arise. So far the allegation regarding illegal practice by the appellant during election process is concerned, admittedly these were subject matter of Issue Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 , 10 and 11 which have been answered by the learne d Tribunal in favour of appellant and the Respondent No, 1 or anybody else, has not challenged the same, hence has attained finality . Lastly he requested for acceptance of this appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 25.3.2014 rendered by the learned Election Tribunal, D.I.Khan.
5. Conversly , learned counsel for Respo ndent No,
1. Argued that the instant appeal being time barred is not maintainable. He pointed out that initially the appellant assailed the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2014 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through Civil Appeal No, 511 dated 5.4.2014 which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally on 24.6.2014 and presented before this Court on 27.6.2014. He emphasized that the period of delay lapsed between 24 to 27.6.2014 has remained unexplained. He argued that, though, the above referred controversy has been decided by this Courtvide order dated 21.6.2016 but the subsequent order , sheet would divqlge that one of the member of the pench who has authored the above ment ioned judgement had remained associated with the case during pre-election proceedings, therefore, the order dated 21.6.2016 cannot be considered as a valid order and this Court being sitting in appellate jurisdiction is competent enough' to revisit the same. In rebuttal of the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant with regard to verification of pleadings and attestation of documents he stated that the election petition is dully verified and the documents have properly been attested. He contended that the omission of parawise verification is curable and not fatal being directory in nature, hence cannot be a ground for non-suiting the respondents. He went on to say that the issue with regard to non- verification of pleading has already been set at naught by the Election Tribunal, at preliminary stage, vide order dated 31.12.2013, against which no appe al has been filed by the appellant, thus has attained finality and cannot be re-agitated at this stage. He argued that during pre-election proceedings the nomination paper of petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer for the reason of concealing the fact regarding his involvement in, the case FIR No, 6/2008 under Sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, registered at Police Station, CNS-1,, Karachi. He went on to say that the appellant had challenged the above said order through filing appeal before the Election Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar High Court, wherein he admitted the factum of his involvement in the above quoted case, however urged his acquittal in the case, is entitled for contesting the election. Though the learned Tribunal had allowed the appellant to contest election on ground of earning acquittal of the charge leveled against him, in the labove i mentioned FIR but the fact remained admitted. Tht at the tifAe of filing nomination paper he was involved in a heinous criminal case and the appellant had not disclosed in the relevant of nominating paper . In view of the above admission of the appellant, no further evidence was required to prove the allegation regarding concealment of 'facts of his involvement in criminal case, thus appellant being non-sagacious, non-righteous, dishonest and not an ameen was not entitled to contest the election for the seat of National Assembly . He stated that the appellant at the time of filing nomination paper has also concealed his business capital outside Pakistan and assets brought or remitted from outside Pakistan. However , during evidence admitted that he has not disclosed in the petition about the ownership of his house at Shahkas, tribal area, which lead one to the conclusion that the petitioner is not sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen within the meaning of section 99 (1) (f) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 and Article 62 of the Constitutional of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 hence was not eligible to contest the election for the seat of National legislature. He requested for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record would reveal that election petition was submitted by Hamidullah Khan (respondent) before the Election Commission of Pakistan which was referred to Election Tribunal vide order dated 21' August 2013 for trial and disposal. The respondent has raised almost 31 objections of corrupt and illegal practice in the election petition including involvement of petitione r in criminal case, vide FIR No, 06/2005 dated 17.04.2008 under Sections 6/9 CNSA of Police Station CNS-1 Karachi. All the allegations, leveled in the petition were vehemently refuted by the respondent in his written statement/reply as well as preliininary objection were raised with regard to maintainability of election petition on the ground that the same is bad in its present form and not been filed according to law. The learned trial Court while hearing the preliminary arguments with regard to maintainability held that election petition contained sufficient detail of illegal and corrupt practice attributed to the returned candidate and election petition is signed and verified by the petitioner duly attested by oath commissioner at Rawalpindi and the annexure attached with the election petition being public documents do not require attestation, while affidavit of witnesses are duly attested by oath commissioner , therefore, the application for summarily dismissal of the election petition was dismissed and the objection on maintainability was overruled whereas the election petition was listed for framing of issues. Out of settled issues, the one relevant for discussion is:--
(i) Whether the election petition is not competent in its present form?
Framing of the above issue would reflect that though the question of maintainability was summarily decided by the trial Court, however , competency of petition in its present form was kept pending for decision. At this juncture learned counsel for respondent vividly objected the arguments of learned coun sel for appellant that issue of maintainability and competency of petition has already been set at naught by the trial Court at initial stage and it cannot be re-opened, being redundant. We are not impressed by the arguments of learned counsel for respondent as the objection raised by him is lacking depth of intellect for the reason that, firstly , the question of maintainability and competency of petition is a legal issue and can be raised at any occasion, secondly , the above quoted issue has been framed after rejection of application for summarily dismissal of election petition. Here it would not be out of context to mention that the appellate Court while deciding the appeal had power similar to trial Court and can reverse finding of the trial Court by meeting the reason of the trial Court. On the touchstone of the above principle we can give a second look to all legal and factual aspects of the case being decided by the election tribunal/trial Court. A glance over the original, petition submitted before the Election Petition would reveal that the petition has not been verified in accordance with provision of Order-VI, Rule 15 read with Section 55(3) of ROP A Act. The necessary discussion that will have to follow may be initiated by extracting the provision of Order-VI, Rule-15, Civil Procedure Code as under: "Order-VI, Rule-15: 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 some other person proved to the satisfaction of.The Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify , by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
(3) 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."
Likewise Section 55 of ROP A Act, 1976 prescribed a formate for an election petitio n, to be filed before the election commission and its verification on oath, as well identification of deponent before oath commissioner , non- compliance of which entails a penal consequences - in terms of Section 63(a), ROP A Act. The text of Sections quoted above is reproduced, which read as: Section 55. Contents of petition ... (1) Every election petition shall contain:
(a) A precise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) Full particulars of any corrupt or illega l practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of the commission of such practice or act; and
(c) The relief claimed by the petitioner .
(2) A petitioner may claim as relief any of the following declarations. Namely--
(a) that the election of the returned candidate is void;
(b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and that the petitioner or some other person has been duly elected; or
(c) that the election as a whole is void.
(3). Every election petition and every schedule or annex 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. Section 63. Dismissal of petition during trial...The Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition if--
(a) The provisions of Section 54 or Section 55 have not been complied with; or
(b) ............................. ...................................
7. As observed above, the verification of election petition in the manner prescribed under the above quoted provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 was mandatory in accordance with provision, of Order-VI, Rule-15, CPC which is missing in the instant case as record of the present case would show that petitioner by filing the election petition did not comply with mandatory requirement with regard to verification of the election petition and therefore, subsequently ,' to rectify and curg the defect he had submitted an application for filing and exhibiting certified copies of the documents already annexed with election petition, which was allowed by the Election Tribunal, vide order dated 13.1.2014. Admittedly none of the documents annexed with the petition was attested and verified on oath which necessitated filing of the above referred to application. The compliance of Section 55(3) of ROP A Act is mandatory and violation thereof shall be visited with penalty of dism issal of election petition under Section 63 (a) of ROP A Act. The learned trial Court was not vested with the power to rectify the omission and cure the illegality committed by the respondent at the time of filing election petition because the requirement of Section 55(3) of ROP A Act being mandatory entail penal consequences. The contention of learned counsel for respondents that the annexed .Photo copies of the documents being "public document" are admissible on the record of election tribunal and does not require verification and attestation in terms of Section 55(3) of the Act ibid, is shallow and unpersuasive, because it is necessary requirement of the law that the documents/annexes having presented with election petition shall be signed and attested by the petitioner in the manner prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code, yet it entails penal consequences under the ROP A Act. According to the dictum of Election Tribunal, Lahore High Court in similar case reported in 2010 CLC 1358 , "the personal verification of an election petitioner on the annexes and schedule attached to the petition fixes upon him the responsibility for the copies of such documents being genuine and for the correctness of the allegation made in his election petition. Such a verification lends credibility to the evidence relied by petitioner and assures the seriousness of his claim. The said statutory precaution filter out the false and frivolous claims. ndeed a photo copy of public document is no better than a piece of secondary evidence which cannot have any A intrinsic probative value let alone the comfort of geniuses of a document demanded by the. ROP A Act, 1976. For such a photo copy document, the requisite credibility may be lent to it upon verification by the electio n petition". Undisputedly the photo copies of annexes attached to the election petition neither bear signature of the respondents nor verification in the election petition in accordance with the mandate of Section 55(3), ROP A Act, therefore, it can be safely held that petitioner while presenting the election petition before the election comm ission in terms of Section 53 has failed to comply with the provision of Section 55(3) of the Act ibid. By now it is settled law that such defect in verification, where pointed out by the contesting party or not, the tribunal alone is bound to ensure compliance of such mandatory provision. So far the order of election tribunal with regard to giant of permission for production of atteste d copy is concerned, suffice it to say that where such permission is sought before the tribunal during period of limitation prescribed for filing of election petition, it can be taken into consideration according to settled principle relating to amendment in pleading otherwise such amendment would not be allowed particularly in absence of any request for condonation for such delay .
8. There is yet another crucial aspect of the matter that at the time of verification of election petition, the respondent/depondent has not been identified by the counsel. On examination of the verification of election petition it transpired that the essential requirement of identification of deponent is missing. No doubt the advocate for petitioner has endorsed a note in bottom of petition in the following words; "the deponent above named is identified by me" but at the foot note of the above statement, the signature of identifier (advocate) is missing. According to law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Lt.Colonal Ghazanfar Abbas Shah, 2015 SCMR 1585 ", the oath commissioner was bound to specify at the foot of affidavit the name and description of the person by whom, identification of the deponent was made and in this regard a certificate had to be, appended.
Fifrthermore it - is also not clear from the verification that petiticiner 'was identified with reference to identity card and in this regard no I.D card number is visible or given, as such the identification of the respondent does not seem to have been made. The same view was reiterated in case titled "Sultan Mahmood Hinjra versus Ghulam Mustafa Kar (2016 SCMR 1312 ). By the apex Court. While examining the provision of High Court Rule and Orders, Chapter 12, volume No, IV Rules No, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16, the apex Court laid down thefollowing guideline. "In such an eventuality the provision of Section 63(a) of ROP A Act, 1976 will come into play which has bound the tribunal by use of word "shall" to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance of Section 54 or Section 55."
9. The nutshell of the above discussion is that in view of the proV4ion of Order-VT , Rule-15 read with Section 55(3) of the Representation .Of People Act, 1976, the election petitioner shall sign each and every document annexed by him with his petition on oath or solemn affirmation and also state the date and place at which it was signed, but the above mentioned mandatory compliance is lacking in the instant case, resultantly , the election petition being filed for .Noncompliance of the mandatory provision of Section 55(3) of ROP A Act, 19.76 was incompetent and not maintainable, hence the findings of the trial Court on Issue No, 1 are unsustainable, therefore set aside.
10: coming to square off the main ground urged by the respondent in the election petition with regard to concealment of fact in nomination paper about involvement of the petitioner in criminal ,case. Admittedly at the time of filing election petition the petitioner has failed to produce attested copy of FIR or any other evidence , suggestive of the fact that petitioner has remained involved in any criminal case. However at the time of recording statement before the tribunal, copy of FIR was exhibited, wherein the appellant has neither nominated .Nor charged for commission of offence. Though the photo copy of challan produced by petitioner reflect the name of petitioner at Serial No, 3 of Column No, 2 but neither the same is attested nor produced from safe hands. In support of his plea the respondent has recorded his sole statement without producing the concerned witness with regard to registration of FIR; investigation of the case, preparing. And placing challan before the Court or alleged acquittal of the appellant. The burden of proof about existing of any. Criminal case against appellant would heavily fall on the shoulders of respondents. Needless to mention that election proceedings before the election tribunal are quasi criminal proceedings, rather Para materia to criminal proceedings. Such criminal charge and allegation must be treated for the purpose of evidence on principle applicable to the trial of criminal charge and in case of doubt raised upon evidence benefit of such doubt must be given to the accused person. In the instant case the solitary statement of the respondent, particularly in absence of any witness from concerned quarter , with regard to existence of criminal case against the appellant would not be sufficient to prove the allegation. The respondents have failed to make out any justification for not summoning official witnesses so much so those whose name given in the list of witnesses. So much so, he could not provide the information to the Court about his source of information with regard to existence of criminal case against the appellant. On the other hand the appellant has exclusively denied the allegation of his involvement in any criminal case. In such an eventuality the anology of criminal trials shall hold good which must be affirmatively proved to the extent of hypothesis consistent with non- commission of any offence and benefit of doubt must be extended to the appella nt against whom the allegation have leveled. In case in hand, the petition er has failed to prove contents of his election petition regarding existence of criminal case against the appellant at the time of filing nomination paper . The success of the appellant, being the mandate of the people of electoral, should not be lightly interfered with, on mere allegation of involvement in criminal case, unless proved on the touchstone of standard of evidence in a criminal case.
11. Another limb of arguments of Jearned counsel for respondents is that appellant, during pre-election proceedings has admitted the fact of existing criminal case, before the Appellate Tribunal constituted for General Elections 2013 and mere denial will not exonerate the appellant from the charge. We are not empfessed by this arguments of counsel for respondent as admission would be relatable only in proceedings in which they were made and would not be used as admission for the purpose of subsequent proceedings, which had been tried on its own merit in the light .Of evidence recorded therein, unless the maker is confronted with the question as to whether he had admitted his involvement in criminal case in such and such terms before a competent forum. The proof of admission against the person making them party relying on admission contained in a document has been dilated upon by the august Supreme Court Pakistan in case titled "Sikandar Hayat and others v.s. Master Fazal Karim"
PLD 1971-Supreme Court page-730, wherein it was held that such document shou ld be put to other party in cross- examination in order to contradict him. It was held that admission contained in previous statement cannot be used as legal evidence without complying with the procedure laid down in Section 145. Of Evidence Act (now Article 140 of the Qanon-e-Shahadat Order 1984). In an other case, titled "Muhamamd Din vs. Raheem Bakhsh etc" reported in 1988 Law Notes-SC-1273, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to highlight the principle that admission or statement made by any witness in previous proceedings, if it is denied or run counter to earlier submission or admission, cannot be used as legal evidence against that party unless the attention of witness during cross-examination was drawn to that previous statement and he was confronted with the specific portion which were sought to be used as admiss ion. While rendering the above referred to principle the august Supreme Court of Pakistan placed reliance on the judgment of full bench of Lahore High, Court reported as "Firm Malik Des Raj Faqir Chand vs. Firm piara Lal Aya Ram and others" AIR 1946 Lahore 65 wherein it was held"
"Where a party has gone into the witness box on the point in issue and in the witness box has made a statement inconsistent with the admission or the statement made in the witness box involves the denial of the previous admission or runs counter to that admission, then the previous admission cannot be used as legal evidence in the case against that party unless attention of the witness during cross-examination was drawn to that statement and he was confronted with the specific portions of that statement which were sought to be used as admissions without complying with the procedure laid down in Section 145 the admission contained in the previous statement cannot be used as legal evidence against that party ."
12. It is manifest from the record that the petitioner has denied allegation of pendency of criminal case in his statement/reply as well as statement recorded before the trial Court, whereas the respondents have failed to confront him with the alleged admission made in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal having being filed against rejection of his nomination paper nor he has contradicted him, therefore, the alleged admission shall have no binding ef fect on the appellant.
13. Resultantly , we have arrived at irresistible conclusion that the respondents failed to prove the pendency of any criminal case at 144 the time of filing nomination paper or to prove his admission before the appellate tribunal.
Therefore the finding of the trial Court is set aside.
14. In the election petition, the respondents have raised objection about concealment of certain material facts by the appellant regarding his personal property . Truly the appellant has shown agriculture income of Rs, Ten Lacs from land holding of 100 Kanals and inherited agriculture land in tribal areas measuring 2 Kanal, plot in Hayatabad valuing Rs, 25 Lacs and income of Rs, 25 Lacs from business capital outside Pakistan, under the name and style of Nasir Cloth Khyber Agency . He has also disclosed 200 toles gold ornaments and household furniture valuing 10 lacs. The respondent during evidence has failed to produce an iota of evidence suggestive of the fact that the assets having been disclosed by the appellant is not in conformity with facts of truth and incorrect. He also could not brought on record anything of material value owned by the appellant and not disclosed in the nomination paper .
Where election is sought to be set aside on the ground of concealment of assets the party challenging its validity must specify in the petition those assets which has allegedly been concealed by the contesting candidate and shall provide Complete list of those properties, income source and assets which have not been disclosed by the candidates. The election petitioner must show and pinpoint the deficiency in the statement of assets and liability declared in the nomination paper . In case in hand the respondent was under laden duty, firstly to provide list of alleged assets owned by the appellant and secondly , to point out or brought on record cogent evidence or information about its concealment by the appellant. By looking at para-XXVI of the election petition the allegation of respondents against the appellant that he had not submitted correct declaration of his assets and liability has remained mere allegation, having no support from any oral or documentary eviden ce. The allegations are general in nature without referring to a single particular item being concealed by appellant. Though Section 12 of the ROP A Act provides that the candidate will have to file statement of his assets and liabiliti es and commission of default in doing so shall amount to corrupt practice under section 78 of the Act ibid. Likewise Section 55(1) (b) provide that full particular of any corrupt or illegal practice will have to be given, but in the case in hand nothing was brought on record by respondent, suggestive of the fact that the . Appellant has made an incorrect declaration in nomination paper . In this regard finding of the tribunal whereby the appellant was deseated from the seat of National Assembly is unjustified. Hence set aside.
15. The arguments of learned counsel for respondent with regard to non-maintainability of the instant appeal has already been set at naught by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2016. The grounds urged before us are shallow , tedious and superficial because the appellant at the first instance has approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan through filing Civil Appeal No, 511/2014 on 5.4.2014 which was entertained and interim relief was granted to the appellant on 10.4.2014 and that too on having no objection by the. Respondent. In the meanwhile, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in another case titled "Air Marshal (R) Syed Qaiser Hussain vs. Sajid Hussain Touri and others" in Civil Appeal No, 1124 of 2013 resolved the anomaly and ambiguity regarding forum of appeal, which necessitated the return of instant appeal hence it was returned to the appellant on 24.4.2016, wherein affidavit was made before the Additional Registrar of this Court on the same day i,e, 24.6.2014 and appeal was submitted on 27.6.2014. From the above it is manifest that petitioner has pursued his appeal vigilantly and this Court vide order dated 21.6.2016 has rightly rejected/repelled the objection of respondent. The decision of this Court has attained finality , being not challenged before the apex Court and by now has became a past and closed transaction as such cannot be re-opened.
16. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is. Allowed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 25.3.2014 is set aside and the notifications of the Election Commission dated 22.5.2013 and 10.6.2013 respectively whereby the petitioner has been declared as returned candidate is restored.