1. Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J. The matter under consideration pertains to the local bodies elections. This Court, in Ch. Muhammad Aziz vs. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore and others [2015 SCR 159], has comprehensively addressed the implications of the mandatory provisions of Section 83 of the Elections Act, 2020, and the consequences of their non-compliance. A series of judgments reinforce these principles, including Gul Pathan vs. Election Commission and others [2023 SCR 1], Ch. Maqbool Ahmed vs. Ch. Muhammad Ismail [2023 SCR 716], Ahsan Shoaib vs. Election Commission and others [2023 SCR 827], Saqib Majeed vs. Election Commission and others [2023 SCR 913], and Raja Muhammad Younis Kiani vs. Election Tribunal and others [2024 SCR 1], The principles derived from these judgments summarized as follows:-
(i) Under Section 83(3) of the Elections Act, 2020 every election petition and every schedule or annexure to that petition shall be singed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings;
(ii) The reference to the CPC in the provisions of Section 83(3) pertains to Order VI, Rule 15, which mandates that every pleading must be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at its foot by the party;
(iii) Order VI, Rule 15, CPC has to be further read in conjunction with Section 139, CPC, which specifies the authorities empowered to administer oaths;
(iv) The provisions of Section 83 of Elections Act, 2020 are mandatory in nature and its non- compliance entails dismissal of election petition under Section 90.
2. Additionally, this Court has laid down the following specific principles:
(i) An election petition must be signed by the petitioner not his counsel.
(ii) Verification must be attested by the authorities specified under Section 139, CPC, including Notary Public.
(iii) A separate affidavit cannot substitute the verification of the petition.
(iv) Non-compliance with Section 83 is an incurable defect.
3. In this case, the appellants filed separate election petitions before the Election Tribunal, challenging the candidatures of their rival candidates. The private respondents sought dismissal of these petitions under Section 90 of the Elections Act, 2020, due to non-compliance with Section 83, The Election Tribunal, through the impugned judgments, dismissed the petitions.
4. We have examined the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in light of the principles established in the judgments cited above. It is pertinent to note that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present case have already been conclusively addressed and resolved by this Court in the judgments referred to in paragraph 1 above. As these principles are well-settled and directly applicable, there is no necessity to examine each argument individually.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the specific findings in the present appeals are as follows: Civil Appeals Nos. 94 to 97: The election petitions were signed by the counsel, not the petitioners.
6. Furthermore, the verification is entirely absent. The Election Tribunal, therefore, correctly dismissed these petitions due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law.
7. Civil Appeal No. 99: Although the election petition was verified, it was signed by the counsel, not the petitioner. Moreover, the verification was not made on oath and lacked attestation by any of the authorities specified under Section 139, CPC. The learned counsel for the appellant is of the view that a separate affidavit duly attested by the Oath Commissioner has been filed, hence, substantial compliance has been made, however, we are afraid this argument has already been addressed by this Court in a recent case titled Muhammad Tazeem Anjum vs. Election Commission and others [Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2023 decided on 29.10.2024] in the following manner: "8. It is evident from the record that in this case, all election petitions (except Election Petition No. 85 of 2023) have been signed and verified on oath. However, the verification in each petition lacks attestation by the authorities specified under Section- 139, CPC, whereas, additionally Election Petition No. 85 is signed by the counsel, not the petitioner and not verified on oath. The learned counsel for the appellants are of the view that they filed separate affidavits in support of the contents of election petitions which is substantial compliance of rules. They have relied on Ahsan Shoaib's case (supra), however, after going through the referred case we are of the view that the stance taken by the appellants is based upon misconception. In Ahsan Shoaib's case, the propositions involved were regarding the attestation of election petition by Notary Public and verification with reference to numbered paragraphs, however, in this case none of the elections petitions is attested by the authority specified under law. In the case reported as Ch. Muhammad Aziz vs Faisal Muntaz Rathore and others [2015 SCR 1591, it was held that a separate affidavit is not a substitute of verification of the election petition. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "Thus, following rule of law laid down in Iqbal Zaffar Jhagra's case [2000 SCMR 250], Malik Umar Aslam v/s Sumera Malik and another [PLD 2007 Supreme Court 362], Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others v/s Syed Hassan Murtaza and others [PLD 2005 Supreme Court 600], Zia-ur-Rehman vs. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others [2014 SCMR 1015] and the judgment of this Court delivered in Muhammad Rafique Nayya r's case [PLJ 2003 SC (AJ&K) 145), we conclude that the attestation of verification by any Court or Magistrate, any officer or other person appointed in this behalf by the High Court or any officer appointed by any other Court or provincial Government, is mandatory and non-attestation merits dismissal of election petition. A separate affidavit is not a substitute of verification of the election petition."
8. In view of the above, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that substantial compliance of the rules has been made through separate affidavit, is not tenable. In our opinion, the impugned judgments passed by the Election Tribunal are fully in consonance with the principle of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and we have no reason for interference."
9. Civil Appeal No. 120: The election petition was signed and verified by the petitioner, but the attestation of verification is not acceptable. The verification is dated 18.01.2023, while the attestation bears the date 17.01.2023, which is logically and procedurally impossible, hence, the Election Tribunal has rightly dismissed the election petition.
10. Civil Appeal No. 128: The petition was signed and verified, but the verification was neither on oath nor attested by an authorized authority under Section 139, CPC. In this case also the contention of appellant is that a separate affidavit duly attested by the Oath Commissioner has been filed, however, in the light of observations recorded in the preceding paragraph no more deliberation is required in this regard.
11. The principles governing the mandatory provisions of Section 83 of the Elections Act, 2020, leave no room for deviation. Non-compliance with these provisions renders an election petition legally untenable. Accordingly, the Election Tribunal's decisions to dismiss the petitions are upheld.
12. Consequently, all the titled appeals are dismissed.