MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---Judgment was reserved in the instant election petition, on 03.12.2018, whereafter the petition was dismissed through a short order , dated 31.12.2018. The said short order reads as under:- "For the reasons to be recorded later the instant petition is dismissed."
2. The petitioner , the runner up candidate, has filed the instant election petition under Section 139 of the Elections Act, 2017 (the Act), challenging the election of respondent No,2, who is the returne d candidate, of the' constituency PP 41 (Sialkot-VII) of the Provincial Assembly or the Punjab. The petitioner has brought the petition on a number of grounds including but not limited to the allegation that the election process of the constituency in question was not conducted in accordance with the Act and the Elections Rules, 2017.
3. The petition was filed on 29.08.2018. It came up for initial hearing on 30.08.2018 . On the said date, the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to the provisions of Sections 142 to 144 of the Act was required to establish if the petition conformed to the said provisions of the said Act. The learned counsel was further informed that in case this Tribunal finds that if any of the provisions of the said Sections have not been complied with, the petition merits summary dismissal under Section 145 of the Act. Since the limitation for filing the petition was still available to the petitioner , the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to amend the petition and to remove the defects therein. The petitioner , therefore, filed C.M.No,2/2018 and thereafter C.M.No,3/2018 for amendment to the petition. C.M.No,3/ 2018 was allowed and on 18.09.2018 the petitioner filed an amended petition. The question of the maintainability of the amended petition kept on pending as the learned counsel for the petitioner sought repeated adjournments due to various reasons including the serious illness of his father . Notices were finally issued to the respondents on 05.10.2018, subject to the question of maintainability of the petition.
Respondents Nos,2 to 23 failed to enter appearance despite service inter alia through publication of notice. As a consequence, they were proceeded against ex parte through the order , dated 29.10.2018, moreover , respondent No,1 (the Returning Officer PP 41 Sialkot-VII) was deleted from the array of the respondents as he had been erroneously impleaded by the petitioner .
4. The attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been drawn to the following:--
1. The amended petition has not been verified in terms of Section 144(4) of the Act, in that, it has not been verified before an Oath Commissioner and only before the learned counsel for the petitioner; and
2. The amended petition is not supported by an af fidavit of service as envisaged by Section 144(2)(c) of the Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended petition is supported by an affidavit. The said affidavit may, therefore, be considered to be the verification of the petition. In respect of the lack of affidavit of service submits that the petitioner has appended the postal, receipts in proof of sending the copies of the petition and the documents appended to it to the respondents in terms of Section 144(2)(c) of the Act.
6. I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that it is mandatory for the petitioner to verify the petition in terms of Section 144(4) of the Act. The said verification has to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in Order VI, Rule 15, or the C.P.C., before an Oath Commissioner . In case the petition is not so verified it is deemed to be not maintainable and merits outright dismissal. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment reported as "Lt.-Col. (Rtd.) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah v.
Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana" (2015 SCMR 1585 ). In the instant: case as observed above no such verification exists.
7. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the affidavit appended to the petition and his request for consideration thereof as the affidavit in support of the petition also does not come to the aid of the petitioner as the said affidavit also does not conform to the law as laid down in Lt. Cot. (Rtd.) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah's case (supra), in that, the place and date of the swearing of the affidavit on oath is not mentioned in -the stamp endorsed thereon by the Oath Commissioner , moreover , there is no statement as to who identified the petitioner to the Oath Commissioner . In absence of the above particulars, especially those of the identifier , the verification of the affidavit cannot be deemed to have been made in accordance with the law .
8. I am similarly not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the affidavit of service, the postal receipts are sufficient to serve the purposes of Section 144(2)(c), for the reason that under Section 145 of the Act if any of the provisions of Sections 142 to 144 of the Act have not been complied with by a petitioner , the petition is not maintainable. The filing of the affidavit of service is one of the mandatory under Section 144(2)(c) of the Act. The petitioner has not filed the said affidavit, therefore, his petition is bad in law for that reason too.
9. Under the circumstances the petition is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.