' The petitioner had contested election to Constituency No, PP-177, Khanewal-IV, held in November, 1988. Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan, Habib Ullah Khan, Abdur Razzaq, Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Shafi had also contested elections from the same Constituency. They had polled votes as under:-- {{TABLE}} ' Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan 30,241 ' Mian Nazir Ahmad (petitioner) 932 ' Ahmad Khan .. 95 ' Habib Ullah Khan 142 ' Abdur Razzaq 23,329 ' Muhammad Shafi 314 ' Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan (respondent No,1) was declared successful.
2. Mian Nazir Ahmad has filed the instant election petition. He has challenged the election of Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan and prayed for deseating him by declaring the election as unlawful and illegal.
3. The respondents other than Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan, did not turn up in spite of service. Ex parte proceedings were, therefore, directed against them. Reply was submitted on behalf of Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan by his counsel in the office, on 19-9-1989. While denying the allegations levelled in the reply, he has also taken preliminary objection. In that, he urged that the petition merits dismissal on account of the fact that neither list of the witnesses was attached with the petition nor affidavits of the witnesses desired to be produced, were filed.
4. After the filing of reply the petition came up for hearing for the first time on 20-9-1989 and the issues were framed on the same day. A preliminary issue on the objection was also framed as under:-- "Whether petition merits dismissal on account of the fact that no affidavits in support of the allegations levelled in the petition have been attached with the petition?"
5. Arguments have been heard today on the preliminary issue.
' Learned counsel for Haji Irfan Ahmad Khan respondent No,1 contended that the petition merits dismissal on account of the petitioner having failed to comply with the relevant rules by not having submitted the list of witnesses as well as the affidavits of the witnesses intended to be examined in support of the allegations levelled in the petition. Learned counsel in that regard placed reliance on Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Arif Sardar (1986 CLC 2050), Sardar Khalid Nawaz v. Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo (1987 CLC 1167), Lt.-Col. (Retd.) J. Abel v. Emmanual Zafar and others (1987 M LD 1372), Maulvi Abdul. Rahim v. Shahzada Mohayuddin (1987 M LD 2460) and Mahr Zafar Ahmad Haraj v. Dr. Khawar Ali Shah (1988 CLC 1289).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not cite any authority as against that. However, he took up a different stance. In that, he contended that Ordinance No, XVIII of 1985 on the authority of which powers were exercised by the Election Commission in laying procedure for trials of the election petitions, which warranted submission of list of the witnesses and their affidavits, had since expired on 17-3-1985 for having not been laid before the National Assembly/Parliament, the rules framed by the Election Commission also had ceased to have the force of law.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent in that regard referred to Article 270-A of the 1973 Constitution, according to which all President's Orders, Ordinances, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders issued during the period that the National Assembly was not working from 5-7-1977 to 1985, stood protected as valid law.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tried to create a distinction. In that, he argued that all the Ordinances were not protected and that some of them were placed before the National Assembly for validation and the National Assembly did validate them. Learned counsel contended that Ordinance No, XVIII also was required to be placed before the National Assembly and non- submission of the same to the National Assembly made the law laid down in the Ordinance as well as the rules framed thereunder as redundant.
9. I do not feel convinced by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder had ceased to hold the force of law. In my view the Ordinance stood protected vide Article 270-A of the Constitution, which generally is known as indemnity clause of the Constitution. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, stand repelled.
10. It is worth noticing that the judgments cited by learned counsel for respondent No,1 were pronounced after so-called ceasing of operation of the rules framed under Ordinance No,XVI4II of 1985. No doubt the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that it does not appear that specific objections had been taken in that regard during the proceedings of those election petitions but the fact remains that if there had been a legal flaw the authors of the judgments would have considered that aspect as well.
11. Minus the objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the validity of the rules framed by the Election Commission under the authority of Ordinance No, XVIII of 1985, learned counsel could not controvert the authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondent. The disability of the petition in hand and the objection taken by learned counsel for respondent No,1 are just parallel to and in line with the disability and objections taken in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent. It is worth noticing that the petitioner had not only failed to furnish list of the witnesses, he wanted to examine, and attach the affidavits of the witnesses intended to be produced, while filing the petition, but he did not care also, to supplement the petition, by filing a list of witnesses even thereafter on having come to know of the fact that respondent No,1 had taken objection to that. The petitioner knew this position since 20-9-1989 but in spite of that he did not move for amendment of the petition or improve the same in any manner.
' For all the reasons enumerated above, the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No,1 regarding non-maintenance of the petition is upheld and the petition is dismissed.
' Since the petition has been dismissed on a point of law, I feel no justification in awarding costs..