' SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---The appellant, who is one of the candidates from PP.110, Narowal III, has challenged the order dated 2-9-1993 of the Returning Officer of the said Constituency vide which he had accepted the nomination papers of respondent Nod.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant had not placed on record certified copy or even uncertified copy of the order sought to be impugned through this appeal. Nonetheless, we are considering this plea and have gone through the original order received from the Returning Officer. The original order does not show that the appellant had raised any objection at the time of scrutiny. According to the provisions of subsection (5) of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, reported in the Statute Part of PLD 1991, a candidate or a voter who had not objected to the acceptance or rejection of the nomination papers cannot file the appeal against the said order. As presumption of truth is attached to the proceedings of the Returning Officer, we cannot advert to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had raised objection at the time of scrutiny but the learned Returning Officer erroneously failed to record the objection. He asserted that if an opportunity is provided, he would be able to prove that the respondent was disqualified, for being a defaulter on account of non-payment of the loan that he had taken. Since the proceedings before the Tribunal are of summary nature, we cannot start with the recording of evidence particularly so when such objections were not raised before the Returning Officer, according to the record. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit.