To challenge the election of respondents No,2 and 3 for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No,114, Gujranwala the petitioner filed an Election Petition. The said respondents filed -a written reply. The learned Tribunal framed the issues on 12-11-2001 and adjourned the case to 3-12- 2001. While so adjourning the case he directed the parties to file list of witnesses within 15 days and in case summoning of the witnesses is required then list of those particular witnesses with diet money be filed, within 3 days. On 3-12-2001, the petitioners instead of producing evidence filed an application seeking leave to summon the witnesses. This application was resisted by the respondents No,1' and 2. Vide an order dated 8-12-2001 the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application.
2. The learned counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has rather resorted to technicalities and that good cause has been shown by his clients for non-filing of list of witnesses within time.
According to the learned counsel the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is without lawful authority.
3. I have examined the copies of the record filed with this writ petition. I find that the said direction referred to me by above was given by the learned Tribunal in the presence of the., petitioners and their learned counsel as is evident from the contents of the Order Sheet dated B 12-11-2001. Now they say that they did not file the list of the witnesses within the prescribed period as they were not aware of the particulars of their witnesses. To my mind the said contention hardly merits any consideration. It is true that a party is not pleadings but at the same time it is to be presumed that a party is aware as to what it is alleging and what it is required to prove and to be aware of the nature of evidence. In the present case the official witnesses are none other than respondents in the petition, itself i,e, the Election Officers. So far as the private witnesses are concerned it cannot all be said that the petitioners were not aware as to who was the person who will be supporting, the allegations being made by him in the Election Petition. There is no question of any technicality when the law prescribes a thing to be done in a certain manner. I may refer here to the case of Mst.
Mussarat Bibi and 2 others v. Tariq Mahmood Tariq (1999 SCM R 799) where the Honourable'
Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that unless good cause is shown and late filing of the list is explained, a Court cannot permit a party to file the same. I, therefore, find that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from lack of lawful authority. This writ petition accordingly is dismissed in limine.