' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---The appellant had filed nomination papers for contesting election from NA-87 Sialkot-III. His nomination papers were accepted subject to the condition that he pays a sum of Rs, 17,15,522 by 13th September, 1993. The said amount, according to the instructions/information of the Returning Officer, was standing as loan against the father of the appellant and four others. The father of the appellant had died two years ago.
' Not being satisfied with the condition imposed by the Returning Officer for acceptance of the nomination papers, the appellant has approached this Tribunal for deleting the condition imposed for acceptance of his nomination papers.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant after going through the newly inserted provisions in subsection
(2) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, contended that even according to the newly added provision, the loan obtained by the father of a candidate (whether living or dead), and the default committed by the father in payment of loan obtained by him, cannot form a ground for disqualification of a son if he wants.to contest election.
3. In this case, it was never asserted that the appellant had obtained the outstanding loan or was a party alongwith his father in obtaining the loan. Apart from what has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the other facts, which we feel are worth-considering, are that the outstanding amount of loan was not wholly to be paid by the father of the appellant. In fact, four others alongwith him had obtained the loan and so they were also liable. According to the law of the land, a son is liable to pay a loan of the deceased father to the extent of the share that he gets from the property. In this case, the deceased father of the appellant had left behind three other sons, two daugthers and a wife, also. Looking from that point also, the appellant cannot be held defaulter in terms of the newly added provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1976, even though he will have to pay the loan to the extent of his share in the property which he inherited from his father. In our view, the condition imposed by the learned Returning Officer was uncalled for. The fact that the appellant had given undertaking that he will pay the amount of father's loan, could not have been a valid ground to impose a condition to contest the election. The appeal is therefore, allowed. Nomination papers of the appellant will be deemed to have been accepted without the fulfilment of the condition imposed by the Returning Officer.