The petitioner, respondents No,2 and 3 and respondents No,4 & 5 contested election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No,69, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat. Respondents Nos,2 and 3 were declared returned. The petitioners filed an election petition to challenge the said election on 27-4-2001. Several allegations were raised in the petition including the fact that respondent No,2 was not qualified to contest the said election as he was not Matriculate. The petition was contested by respondents No,1 & 2 who filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the election petition. Several issues were framed by the learned Election Tribunal was proceeded to take up the following issue No,1 as preliminary:-- (1), Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR.
According to the impugned judgment dated 15-2-2002. the following three points were urged by respondents No,2 & 3 in support of the said issue:-
(i) Election petition was not presented by the duly authorised person,
(ii) Copy of the election petition was not sent to respondents Nos, 1 and 2.
(iii) Election petition was not verified in accordance with law.
Out of these first two points, in the opinion of the learned Tribunal, could not be taken up at the preliminary stage. He proceeded to discuss the said third objection and to hold that the petition is not verified in accordance with Rule 72(3) of the PLGO Rules, 2000. The petition was accordingly dismissed in terms of Rule 77 of the said Rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the election petition was duly verified in accordance with Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. as was the mandate of Rule 72(3) of the said Rules and the learned Election Tribunal has acted without lawful authority in dismissing the petition. Learned counsel for respondents No,2 & 3, on the other hand, with reference to the judgment in the cases Peter Joh Sahotra v. The Returning Officer and 24 others (1995 CLC 687) and Muhammad Azad Gul v. Said Muneer Said and 11 others (1997 CLC 1132) has argued that since the Oath was not administered by an Oath Commissioner, - the learned Election Tribunal has correctly dismissed the petition.
3. I have examined the copy of the election petition accompanying this writ petition, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that it has been verified by the petitioner as follows:-- "Verified on oath at Gujrat on; 27-4-2001 that the contents of above petition and the documents relied upon are correct to the best of our knowledge and belief."
I may note here that similar verification is appended to the written statement filed by respondents No, 2 & 3. The burden of Rule 72(3) of the said Rules is that the election petition has to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Order VI Rule 15 lays down the following manner of verification of the pleadings:---
(i) Every pleading shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(ii) The person verifying shall specify by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading what he verifies of his own knowledge and that he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
(iii) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall State the date on which and the place on which it was signed.
Applying the said provision i,e, Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. to the election petition in hand, it has been verified on oath by the petitioner. It has been stated that the contents are correct to the best of their knowledge. The verification has been signed by the petitioner, it is dated and states that it was signed at Gujrat. Thus to my mind, all the requirements of Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. stand proved. Out of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, I may State here that the case of Peter John Sahotra was decided by the learned Election Tribunal, Punjab while the said case of Muhammad Azad Gul was decided by the learned Election Tribunal NWFP. It is in the case of said Peter John Sohatra that the learned Election Tribunal, Punjab had while noting the salient features of verification with reference to Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. has proceeded to State that it . shall be attested by the Oath Commissioner. With respect, I have not been able to find anything in the C.P.C. or the Rules or Orders of this Court which mandated that the verification to be made in accordance with Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. has to be attested by the Oath Commissioner. There is certainly no such requirement spelt out in Order VI Rule 15, C.P.C. as it stands both before and after the amendment by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
4. In my humble opinion the litigants are not to be burdened with requirements otherwise not spelt out in the relevant Statute. I may here refer to the case of the Government of West Pakistan through the Chief Secretary, Lahore etc. v. Niaz Muhammad (PLD 1967 SC 271) where/while/dealing with the question of due diligence in the matter of obtaining copy of a decree for the purpose of filing of an appeal, Chief Justice A.R Cornelius (as his Lordship then was) made the following observations at page 277 of the report:- "There is a difference between anxiety and due diligence. An anxious litigant may make an immediate application after the announcement of the judgment, but for satisfaction as to due diligence, it is the requirement of law, which must determine the matter. There being a sanction provided, viz, that of dismissal if the prescribed period of limitation is exceeded, care should be taken that no burden is placed upon the litigant which is heavier than that which the statute, fairly interpreted within its terms, imposes."
5. For all that has been discussed above this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15- 2-2002 of learned Election Tribunal is set aside. The result would be that the election petition filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Election Tribunal where the parties shall appear on 20-5-2002. The records shall be requisitioned and the election petition will be decided in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned Election Tribunal.