' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---Since similar point of law regarding the competency of the appellants to file appeals, is involved in Appeal No,32 of 1993 filed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam Kaira against the acceptance of nomination papers of Ijaz Ahmad by the Returning Officer of PP-96 Gujrat-V1, Appeal No,35 of 1993 filed by Malik Bashir-ud-Din Khalid against the acceptance of nomination papers of Abdur Rehman Mangat by the Returning Officer of the Minorities Seat, Appeal No,37 of 1993 filed by Sardar Hassan Akhtar Mokal against the acceptance of the nomination papers of Malik Muhammad Ashiq by the Returning Officer of PP-152 Kasur-VIII, Appeal No,39 of 1993 filed by Liaqat Khan against the acceptance of nomination papers of Muhammad Mal Chan by the Returning Officer of PP-100 Mandi Baha-ud-Din and Appeal No,44 of 1993 filed by Major Retd.
Tariq Zia Chaudhry against the acceptance of nomination papers of Muhammad Naseer Khan by the Returning Officer of PP-113 Narowal-11, they are being disposed of together.
2. In all these cases the acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondents has been questioned. The impugned orders in all the cases show that the appellants had not raised objections at the time of scrutiny. According to the provisions of subsection (5) of section 14 of the Representation of the A People Act (No,LXXXV of 1976), as substituted by Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance (No, V of 1990), only that candidate or voter can file appeal against the acceptance of the nomination papers, who had raised objection at the time of the scrutiny. For ready reference the provisions of subsectrion (5) of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are being noted hereunder, printed in Statute Part of PLD 1991: "(5) A candidate, or an elector who had filed an objection to the nomination of a candidate, may prefer an appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting or, as the case may be, accepting the nomination papers of the candidate to the Tribunal constituted for the constituency to which the nomination relates and consisting of the Returning Officer rejecting, or, as the case may be, accepting nomination by the Commissioner, with the approval of the President; and such appeal shall be summarily decided within such time as may be notified by the Commission and any order passed thereon shall be It is apparent from the above provisions that the appeals filed by the appellants who had not raised any objection at the time of scrutiny of the acceptance of the nomination papers were not comeptent. Although the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that their clients had raised objections but we are unable to consider the argument as presumption of truth is attached to the regularity of the proceedings recorded by the learned Returning Officer. We also cannot resort to recording evidence as it is provided that the appeals shall be disposed of summarily.
3. As a result, all the appeals stand dismissed being incompetent.