1. ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.- This application has been moved by the respondent No. 2 under Section 63 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a prayer that election petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed for the following reasons:-
(1) Mandatory provisions of Section 55(1)(b) and Section 55(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 have not been complied with by the petitioner.
(2) In para No. 3 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged "corrupt practice" but has not given the details thereof, and thereby, has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 55 (l)(b) of the Act.
2. This application has been contested by the petitioner and in his-counter affidavit he contended that in fact this application has been filed to gain time and delay the decision of the Election Petition. He- also contended in his counter- affidavit that the respondent No. 2 had already filed his written-statement, in which he did not take the plea which he has taken in this application. He also contended in counter-affidavit that the respondent did not point out to the Court any defects in the petition at the first opportunity, and that therefore, this application may be treated as an after- thought, and be dismissed. Apart from that, the petitioner in his counter-affidavit contended that para No. 3 of the petition, wherein the allegation of corrupt practice is made, cannot be read in isolation, and if read in conjunction with entire petition, the specific references of the corrupt and illegal practice and disqualifications of the respondent No. 2 under provisions of Section 12 of the Act are clearly described.
3. In order to appreciate the merits of the application under Section 63, it is necessary to revert to the facts of the case. The petitioner Abdul Salam Thahim had contested elections to the Provincial Assembly of Sindh from PS-68, Sanghar-V, in the General Elections held on 3rd February, 1997 against the respondent No. 2 and other candidates. The respondent No. 2 was declared as the returned candidate, the number of votes secured by the petitioner was 14,869 while the respondent had secured 25,496 votes.
4. The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent No. 2 by filing the election petition under Section 52 of the Act, which the Election Commission of Pakistan has entrusted to this Tribunal for decision. The main ground on which the petitioner had based his petition is that the respondent No. 2 was a defaulter in respect of the wealth tax, Taqavi loans and utility charges, and therefore, he had incurred a disqualification and consequently he could not remain a member of the Assembly.
5. This ground was. Raised on the fact that the respondent No. 2 while filing the declaration in respect of his assets in the nomination form had failed to make declaration in respect of his assets (which the petitioner has pointed out in the petition) and, therefore, the specific pleas were taken that although the petitioner was liable to pay income tax and wealth tax he had not paid the same and that the petitioner had made certain other mis-declarations in respect of his assets.
6. The respondent No. 2 in his written statement contended that at the time of acceptance of the nomination form the respondent No. 2 had paid the wealth tax whatever was outstanding at that time and that since he was not liable to pay any income tax he was not a defaulter in that respect.
7. He also contended that a sum of Rs. 2079/- towards the wealth tax was paid on 24.4.1997, demand of which was made from him for the first time after the elections. It was further pleaded that the respondent No. 2 was not a defaulter in any case and that he had made no misdeclaration in respect of his other assets and that the election petition merited no consideration.
8. The written statement was filed on 28.4.1997 while the application under Section 63 was moved on 4.6.1997 by the respondent No. 2, which had been heard and is being decided by this order.
9. This application is based only on two grounds which have been described above. The first ground is in respect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 55(l)(b) and Section 55 (3) of the Act. The above provisions of law are reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "S. 55. Contents of Petition.-
(1) Every election petition shall contain-
(a) ....
(b) full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice of other illegal act alleged to have been committed, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of the commission of such practice or act; and
(c) ..............
(2) ...............................
(3) Every election petition and every schedule or annex to that petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid do\yn in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings."
10. Thus, in fact the objection of the respondent No. 2 for dismissal of the election petition through this application under Section 63 can be analysed as under:-
(1) Particulars of the corrupt practice had not been given in paragraph 3 of the petition.
(2) The petitioner had failed to verily the contents of the petition and its annexures as required by law.
11. Paragraph No. 3 of the petition no doubt mentioned in general terms stating therein that during the elections corrupt practices and illegalities were indulged into, which have affected the fairness and illegality of the election process and the no' respondent No. 2 had maugred and manipulated the entire election process in collusion with the administration. There are no specific examples of corrupt practice in this paragraph. However, in the succeeding paragraphs specific and express allegations have been levelled and it has been pin pointed that although it has been mentioned in the declaration in the nomination papers by the respondent No. 2 that he did not pay any income tax and wealth tax during the years 1994-95., 95-96 and 96-97, but his assets disclosed in the same nomination form, required payment of wealth tax and income tax, for the relevant period and thus he was a defaulter. Further, specifically it has been contended that value of the agricultural land owned by the respondent No. 2 was declared at Rs. 17 lacs, whereas its present value was Rs. 37,50,000/-. It was also specifically pleaded that the respondent No. 2 being liable to pay wealth tax, on the agricultural land had failed to pay the same and, therefore, he was a defaulter. Therefore, the subsequent paragraph also particulars in specific terms in respect of the defaults committed by the respondent No. 2 and the corrupt, practice indulged into by him have been given. Issues have been struck for the decision of such points. Therefore, reading the entire petition in conjunction with paragraph No. 3 of it, I do riot, find that particulars of the allegations, which come within the definition of corrupt practice are not given. Therefore, I hold that the first ground for dismissing the election petition does not succeed.
12. Coming to the second ground viz. Section 55 (3) it has to be seen whether the petition lacks the requirement as provided by the above provisions, and it is to be seen what is the effect of the same.
13. Firstly, the verification of the petition is there in the following terms:- "VERIFICATION I, Abdul Salam Thahim s/o Gul Muhammad Ibrahim, resident of Village Tayab Thahim, Taluka Tando Adam, District Sanghar do hereby verify on solemn affirmation this 24th day of March, 1997, that whatever is stated above in paras-1 to 20 by the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
14. Sd/- DEPONENT/PETITIONER"
15. This declaration is on oath administered by one M. Aijaz Ahmed Khan, Oath Commissioner of Karachi, whose stamp and signatures along with the adhesive stamps appeared on the petition. It is dated 24.3.1997. Thus, it is found that the verification on oath is there, the oath had duly been administered by an Oath Commissioner. Date and place have also been mentioned with the stamp of the Oath Commissioner, and it is also stated that the deponent had solemnly affirmed the contents of petition in his presence at Karachi on 24.3.1997 on oath, and that the petitioner was identified by his counsel Mr. Naraindas, whose signature also appears at the bottom of the verification, in token of his being present at the time of verification. Therefore, the objection as regards the non-verification of the petition on oath, and non-mentioning of the place and date of verification stand rebutted by the contents of the verification itself and endorsement by the Oath Commissioner.
16. The next point argued by the learned counsel was that the documents attached with the petition did not bear the signatures of the petition and were not verified on oath.
17. In order to examine this argument, the documents filed along with the petition were scrutinised. It is found that nearly all the documents filed along with the petition bear the signature of the petitioner. As regards the separate verification of each document, it is not present on the documents. Many of these documents are public documents in original bearing the signatures of the Issuing Authorities like the Presiding Officer in the shape of statements and certificates and some of the documents are certified true copies of such statements. There is no schedule attached to the petition except these documents described above.
18. The leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 led much stress on the point, that since each document had not been separately verified on oath the petition must be dismissed under Section 63 of the Act and in support of his arguments the learned counsel relied upon mainly cases viz. (1) the case of Tariq Mahmood Bajwa v. Muhammad Afzal Sahi and others, reported in 1994 CLC 1366 and the case of Peter John Sahotra y. Returning Officer, reported in 1995 CLC 687. In addition to the above two cases, the leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 also relied upon the case of Haji Zafar Ali Leghari v. Returning Officer, reported in 1992 M LD 2312 and the case of Asadullah v. Asghar Ali and another, reported in 1995 CLC 150.
19. In the first case, the Election Petition was dismissed under Section 63 of the Act by the Election Tribunal. On going through the above-cited case, it is found that the verification in the said case was neither on oath nor the oath was administered by any Oath Commissioner. While recording the main features of the verification in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held in the above case as under:- "The following are the main features of the verification in accordance with the above provision of the Code of Civil Procedure:-
(i) It has to be on oath or solemn affirmation;
(ii) the person verifying shall specify the paragraphs, which he verifies of his own knowledge and the paragraphs, which are believed to be true by him separately;
(iii) the verification shall be signed by the person making it; and
(iv) it shall contain the date and place when and where the signatures were appended."
20. Thereafter it was found that the election petition in that case did not comply with the main requirements noted above and, therefore, it was found that the verification was not in accordance with law. But in the case in hand main feature of the verification i.e. It should be on oath, or on solemn affirmation, is in positive. The other main feature of the verification having been signed by the person making it, is also in the positive. The third main feature of the verification that it shall contain the date and place when and where the signatures were appended, is also in positive. The only main feature which may be partly lacking in this verification is the mentioning of the specific paragraphs of the petition, which were verified to be true in accordance with his own knowledge, and those paragraphs which were believed by the petitioner to be true. These have not been separately mentioned in the petition.
21. Reverting to the verification on this petition it has been mentioned as under "VERIFICATION I, Abdul Salam Thahim son of Gul Muhammad Thahim resident of Village Tayab Thahim, Taluka Tando Adam, District Sanghar do hereby verify on solemn affirmation this 24th day of March, 1997, that whatever is stated above is in para-1 to 20 by the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
22. Sd/- DEPONENT/PETITIONER"
23. The reading of this verification will show that the petitioner has stated that all the paragraphs of the petition are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. He has not said any paragraph to be true according to his belief. Therefore, in my view this is not a defective verification and the principle laid down in the case of Tariq Mehmood Bajwa v. Muhammad Afzal Sahi, is not attracted due to particular facts and Circumstances of. This case.
24. In the second case relied upon by the leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 i. e. Peter John Sahovxi v. Returning Officer and others, the election petition was dismissed on the ground that the allegations levelled were too vague and it was held that the further proceedings in the matter would serve no useful purpose.
25. Secondly, in the said case it was found that the documents Annexures A to F were neither signed nor verified by the petitioner and even the verification of the petition itself was found not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15 and it was not attested by the Oath Commissioner.
26. Therefore, it was cumulatively found that verification of the election petition was not in accordance with law while "the documents Annexures A to F need not be at all signed or verified by the petitioner" (Force supplied by me). Thus the circumstances and facts in the case of Peter John Sahotra are different from the facts and circumstances of this case.
27. The third case relied upon by the leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that on Misc.
28. Application Haji Zafar Ali Leghari the case was dismissed by the Tribunal as the affidavit-in- evidence filed by the petitioner was on a very belated stage and no ground for filing the same after about one year and two months of filing of the election petition was shown and the ground that the petitioner was misled by his previous counsel was held not to be a valid ground and the affidavit was not taken on record. The facts of the said case are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
29. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application under Section 63 of the Act and, therefore, dismiss the same.