IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- The appellant through this appeal as challenged the order of acceptance of nomination of Respondent No. 2. It is argued that the respondent No. 2 and his wife are Directors of a Company known as Sialkot Dairies Limited, Sialkot. They have taken loan from various Banks in the sum of Rs. 22,00,00,000/-. It is added that respondent No. 2 has not shown its liabilities in the relevant Column of the nomination. It is added that the respondent No. 2 mala fide has appended Form-A pertaining to year 1991-92 in order to conceal his liabilities and assets. On the other hand Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate, argued that the Farm-A was submitted under section 156 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 and prima facie the same is to be accepted as correct in view of the provision of the section 151 of the Companies Ordinance. It is added that the respondent No. 2 is not liable until he owns controlling share in the business, whereas according to the affidavit of his clien the and his wife are holders of shares to the extent of l2 and a half percent and there are even-other Directors beside them, therefore the case is not a covered under section l2 subsection (2) (III) read with Explanation-B. The leamed counsel in this behalf referred to (1991 CLC 1) Pir Allay Immrawn and another v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & another, Sardar Talib Hussain Nakai v. Returning Officer and another (1993 M LD 2485), and Zulfiqar Ali Aulakh v. Rana Nazir Ahmad Khan and 5 others (1993 M LD 2500). It is added that the liability of Company has not been shown because that is not liability of the share how are or Directors of the Company. In this behalf learned counsel referred to A. Rehman v. Tehsildar Lahore and another (1993 CLC 1222).
2. We ave given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the leamed counsel for the parties and gone through the record and precedent cases. The onus to prove that allegation was on the appellant in view of the case of Pir Allay Immrawn and another. The appellant has himself failed to discharge this onus. This is not all. According to the statement of assets as well as Form-A and affidavit of respondent No. 2, he and his family members jointly owned 19,500 share out of 1,56,000 share of Sialkot Diary. This would constitute about 12 and a half percent of the total voting power, therefore, as per explanation of section 12(2) he does not own this business, the leamed counsel for the respondents as rightly referred to cases of Sardar Talib Hussain Nakai (1993 M LD 2485, and Zulfiqar Ali Aulakh (1993 M LD 2500).
3. The respondent No. 2 was required to show his liability as well as that of his spouses etc. And not of the Company, which is legally independent entity and its liability cannot be that of the its share holders and Directors. The leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 had rightly referred to the case of A. Rehman (1993 CLC 1222).
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.