QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J:- Captioned petition calls into question return by Javed Iqbal respondent as successful candidate from NA-179 Rahim Yar Khan-V in General Elections held on 25-7-2018; assault is structured upon a variety of grounds ranging from concealment of assets by the respondent, violation of rules by the election staff, exclusion of petitioner 's agents as well as valid ballot papers from his count, with the following prayer:- "In the above mentioned circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that by accepting this petition, the Election of the constituency NA-179 Rahim Yar Khan-V held on 25.07.2018 whereby the respondent No.1 is declared as returned candidate may very kindly be declared void illegal as a whole and the notification issued by the Election Commission and declarations given by the Learned Returning Officer in Form 47-48 and 49 may very kindly be set aside and an appropriate order for the conduct of a fresh poll may very kindly be passed or an appropriate order for re-counting of the ballot papers of all the polling stations of the constituency NA-179 Rahim Yar Khan-V may also be passed and declare the petitioner to have been elected as returned candidate."
The petition came up for hearing on 8-10-2018 when the respondents were sent for next date of hearing on 12- 10-2018; after two intervening dates, the respondent/returned candidate filed written reply with preliminary objections accompanied by an application for rejection of election petition raising question of maintainability of the petition on account of petitioner's non-compliance with statutory provisions. While refuting allegations of "corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act" attention was invited towards petitioner's failure to verify the petition in the manner, mandatorily required under subsection 4 of section 144 of the Elections Act 2017 (XXXIII of 2017). Absence of solemn affirmation on the affidavits of the witnesses annexed with the petition was also pointed out for summary dismissal of the petition. Verification on the bottom of petition's last page, reads as under:- "Verification It is verified on oath at Bahawalpur that contents of the election petition from Para No.1 to 26 of this Election Petition are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Verified at Bahawalpur on 17-09-2018."
It carried a stamp of attestation by an Oath Commissioner without affirmation on oath, however, on the following page, there is an affidavit by the petitioner with a declaration on solemn affirmation regarding contents of the election petition as being true to the best of deponent's knowledge and belief. This separate page is also attested by the same Oath Commissioner with an additional stamp hardly legible, purporting administration of oath upon the deponent, nonetheless, without details regarding identity of the deponent, reference to the one who identified him or distinct affirmation regarding averments settled in different paragraphs; same goes for as many as seventeen affidavits annexed with the petition without any indication regarding solemn affirmation on oath administered upon the witnesses, as each merely carried a stamp of attestation without reference to the administration of oath upon the executant.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that a proper verification of the election petition in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) is a mandatory requirement that has not been followed and as such the petition was liable to be rejected/dismissed in view of command of section 145 of the Act ibid. It has further been argued that statements of the witnesses annexed with the election petition cannot be viewed as a "statement on affidavit" within the contemplation of section 144(2)(a) of the Act ibid in the absence of administration of oath upon their makers and, thus, the omission additionally renders the petition as non- proceedable. Reliance is placed in the cases of Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan Vs. Returning Officer PP-12 & others (2015 S.C.M.R. 1698), Hina Manzoor Vs. Malik Ibrar Ahmad & others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 396), Zia-ur-Rehman Vs. Syed Ahmad Hussain & others (2014 S.C.M.R. 1015), Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra & others Vs. Khalil-ur-Rehman & 4 others ( 2000 SCMR 250) and Lt. Col. (Retired) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah Vs. Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana & others (2015 P.S.C. 1214) to argue that non compliance with the mandatory requirements left no space except for dismissal of the plea. Contrarily, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted his best to downplay the debilitating impact of non-compliance, otherwise patent on the record; he argued that the petitioner cannot be non-suited on hyper technical objections structured upon inconsequential lapses in a lis that involves adjudication on a question of national importance; he referred to rule 140 of the Election Rules 2017 to argue that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to process the petition and in case it was found not in accordance with the laid down procedure, it ought to have intimated the petitioner to fulfill the same within seven days and since such exercise has not been carried out, the election petition cannot be dismissed. It is next argued that once the petition was posted before the Tribunal and respondents were summoned, it could be only disposed of in the manner provided under section 154 of the Act ibid and that according to the learned counsel required a full-dress trial; to substantiate his position, he has relied upon the cases of Ch. Zawwar Hussain Warraich Vs. Muhammad Aamir Iqbal & others (2015 SCMR 1186), Rasheed Ahmad Vs. Province of Punjab through District Collector Vehari and another (2004 SCMR 707) and Sardarzada Zafar Abbas & others Vs. Syed Hassan Murtaza & others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 600) to argue that technicalities must not impede adjudication on merits and that verification on the next page would be sufficient to meet the requirement of verification of pleadings as mandated by law.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Section 144 subsection 4 of the Act ibid mandatorily requires verification of the petition in the manner provided in the Code ibid. Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 postulates manner of verification, as under:- "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 pleadings, 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. "
The above formulation of law leaves no space to entertain any hypothesis of verification in disjunction with the pleadings and, thus, a solemn affirmation at an additional space would not meet the requirement of law. View taken by their Lordships in supra cases of Rasheed Ahmad & Ch. Zawar Hussain Warraich , Sardarzada Zafar Abbas & others, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner , has not been shared by their Peers in subsequent judgments wherein strict compliance without condonation is insisted. Declaration of law in the case of Lt. Col. (Retired) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah supra unredeemably forecloses fate of an election petition without verification in the manner as mandated by law. Similarly arguments that the Tribunal was required under Rule 140 ibid to point out the infirmities to the petitioner so as to rectify the same and that after the petitioner crossed the threshold, summary dismissal was not an option available with the Tribunal, though ingeniously articulated, nonetheless, are beside the mark. This petition was instituted on the last date of period of limitation and, thus, there was no occasion for the Tribunal or its office to take upon itself to advice the petitioner vigilance in his pursuits. Survey of above statutory provisions and the principles enunciated in the judgments relied upon leave no space for a hypothesis other than to hold that the requirements are not mere technicalities, as the language implied being intractable clearly provides for dismissal on the defects pointed out by the respondent. Similarly , issuance of process to the respondent would not preclude the Tribunal to throw out a petition otherwise inherently incompetent. Reliance is placed in the case of Dr. (Smt) Shipra, etc. Vs. Shanti Lal Kohiwal, etc. decided by Supreme Court of India, relevant portion whereof is profitably reproduced, as under:- "The contention that the election petition cannot be dismissed under Section 86 at the threshold on account of the omission on the part of the Registry of the High Court to point out the same as per its procedure, cannot be countenanced. Lapse on the part of the Registry is not an insurance to deny to the returned candidate the plea that the attestation of the affidavit and its certification to be a true copy is an integral part of the pleadings in the election petition. Section 81, 83(1)(c) and 86 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules and form 25 are to be read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so read, if the Court finds on an objection, being raised by the returned candidate, as to the maintainability of the election petition, the Court is required to go into the question and decide the preliminary objection. In case the Court does not uphold the same, the need to conduct trial would arise. If the Court upholds the preliminary objection, the election petition would result in dismissal at the threshold, as the Court is left with no option except to dismiss the same."
Provisions of Act ibid are analogous to the statutory mechanism discussed above. The above view is also in line with the law declared in Zia Rehman supra case, relevant portion is reproduced with profit, below:- "S.52--Election petition---Maintainability- When an objection was raised with regard to maintainability of an election petition for non-compliance with a mandatory provision, the Court/T ribunal should decide such preliminary objection (first), because if such objection was sustained, then the Court/T ribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the (election) petition."
There is yet another dilemma confronting the petitioner and that is his failure to annex statements of the witnesses in the form of an affidavit. The statements of the proposed witnesses san administration of oath upon them and, thus, petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone for breach of Section 144 (1)(a) of the Act ibid, unambiguously requiring the petitioner to attach. In the High Court Rules & Orders, Volume IV Chapter 12, form of oaths and affirmation to be administered to the witnesses are aptly illustrated; it inter-alia provides details essentially to be mentioned in relation to the identity of declarant as well as time and place of deposition as well as certification by the one who administers the oath. In the case of Lt. Col. (Retired) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah supra, compliance with the above procedure in an election dispute has been viewed as mandatory, therefore, mere attestation on the statements of the witnesses, purporting to be as affidavits contravenes Section 144 (2)
(a)(1) of the Act ibid, an unredeemable error inviting inevitable dismissal. Election Petition No.19 of 2018 is dismissed.