' Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No,4 filed nomination papers to contest the election of Nazim from Halqa No,85 Union Counsel Lar, Tehsil and District Multan. The nomination papers of respondent No,4 were accepted by respondent No,1 against which the petitioner tiled an objection petition on the ground that respondent No,4 is wilful defaulter within the meaning of section 14(J) of the Punjab Local Council Elections Ordinance, 2000. The objection petition was dismissed by respondent No,1 vide its order, dated 3-5-2001 against =which the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No,2 which also met the same fate and was dismissed on 6-5-2001. All these orders are being assailed through this writ petition.
2. At the very out set learned counsel for respondent No,4 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that Rana Muhammad Ashraf who was contesting election as NaibNazim with respondent No,4 has not been rayed as respondent in the petition, therefore, this petition is not properly constituted .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since there was no objection with respect to said Rana Muhammad Ashraf candidate of Naib-Nazim nor any objection was raised by the petitioner before the lower forum against him, therefore, he was not a necessary party.
4. We have considered the objection and overruled the same for the reason that the candidature of said Rana Mahammad Ashraf was not challenged at any stage before the lower forum. Nobody has challenged his candidature even in this petition nor any relief being claimed against him, therefore, he is not necessary party in this petition.
5. On merits learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No,4 had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against A.D.B.P. In which a consent decree was passed on 16-11-1999.
Respondent No,4 appeared before the Banking Court No,1 Multan and accepted his liability of payment to the said Bank to the tune of Rs,17,30,618 'and a decree was accordingly passed on his statement and it was directed as follows: "In view of the statements made by the counsel of the parties and attorney of the plaintiff, the suit is decreed to tune of Rs,17,30,618 in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall deposit this amount in the form of fine quarterly equal instalments of Rs, 3,46,123.60 to be deposited by 16-2-2000, 16-5-2000, 16-8-2000, 16-11-2000 and 16-2-2001. In case the plaintiff fails to deposit any instalment, as undertaken the defendants will be at liberty to seek recovery of the whole remaining decretal amount in lump sum through execution petition. Further, the defendants shall be entitled to recover mark-up at the agreed rate from 16-11-1999 till realization of the whole decretal amount. However, the defendants shall deposit court-fee to the tune of Rs,15,000 in this Court by 16-12-1999 failing which the claim shall stand dismissed. In case of regular deposits, the plaintiff should not be subjected to any measure of recovery. In view of compromise between the parties, no order as to costs."
' It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that section 14(j) of the Ordinance does not require that the adjudged amount must be recoverable.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,4 contends that since the decree passed by the learned Banking Court No,1 Multan was a consent decree, therefore, the amount decreed against respondent No,4 cannot be termed as adjudged amount. It is further contended that since the Bank was also required vide order dated 16-11-1999 passed by the Banking Court to pay a sum of Rs,15,000 as court-fee and since the said court-fee has not been paid, therefore, the claim of the Bank stands dismissed, therefore, respondent No,4 cannot be termed as a wilful defaulter.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The requirement of section 14(j) of the said Ordinance is that if some dues against a candidate are adjudged by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the question of its being recoverable or not is not relevant for the purpose of section 14(j) of punjab Local Council Elections Ordinance, 2000. It is not necessary for an amount to be adjudged, that it was fixed after a full-fledged trial. If the parties before a Court of competent jurisdiction agree to settle their dispute through a compromise and the said Court passes a decree and fix their liabilities, then the amount so fixed would be an adjudged amount due against that party. We would not like to comment upon the procedure which the Bank can adopt for its recovery but the fact remains that respondent No,4 had admitted his liability before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the said Court had passed a decree against him for the said amount. We asked the learned counsel for respondent No,4 as to whether his client is ready to clear the said amount but the answer is in the negative. However, at this stage, it is clarified that any observation made in this order will not prejudice the case of any party before any forum, where the matter of recovery of the alleged amount may be raised or is pending.
9. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the order of respondents Nos.1 and 2, dated 3-5-2001 and 6-5-2001 are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Resultantly, nomination papers of respondent No,4 shall be deemed to have been rejected. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.