The petitioners on the one hand, respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the second and respondents Nos.4 and 5 on the third, contested election to the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim in Union Council No.157, Sargodha. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 polled 1599 votes and respondents Nos.2 and 3 secured 1591 votes while the petitioners ended up with 1728 votes. Consequently respondents Nos.4 and 5 were declared returned. On 8-2-2001, respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed an election petition to challenge the election of respondents Nos.4 and 5. The petitioners were also impleaded as parties. A perusal of election petition (Annexure 'B') shows that the entire election petition proceeded against respondents Nos.4 and 5. Notices were issued. The said contesting respondents filed a reply and they also filed a recrimination. So far as the proceedings of the case are concerned, already twice the said contesting parties had been to this Court in writ jurisdiction. On 27-2-2002, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings. It was stated that they had not been served. The petition was contested only by respondents Nos.2 and 3 who took the plea with reference to the conduct of respondent No.5 in the case that the petitioners have been put up by the said respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are making all efforts to delay the proceedings in the election petition and are not letting the evidence of the said election petitioners recorded. It was urged that the petitioners had, in fact, been served. The learned Election Tribunal heard the application and dismissed the same on 6-3-2002.
2. The learned counsel for petitioners contends that the impugned without lawful authority inasmuch his clients have been declined the right to join the proceedings when they had not been served.
3. I find that apart from the fact that the learned Tribunal has found as a fact that the petitioners were duly served in the course of the election petition, the petitioners have been unable to demonstrate as to what prejudice has been caused to them because of the impugned order. I called upon the learned counsel as to whether his clients wish to oppose the election petition or to support the recrimination filed by one of the candidates. The answer is that the election petition is not to be supported since there is nothing against the petitioners. However, the recrimination is to be supported only to the extent that the election be declared void. Now the said stance taken by the petitioners had to confirm that no prejudice stands caused to them. Needless to state that the recrimination in its essence is proceedings to get a decision that the election petitioners 6 are not liable to be declared elected for the reasons to be stated by the person filing the recrimination.
4. Now under rule 79 of the P.L.G.E. Rules, 2000, any party to the petition can file a recrimination but it has to be filed within 14 days of the commencement of trial. I called upon the learned counsel as to whether any such recrimination has been filed by the petitioner. The answer is in negative. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioners (Annexure 'G') reveals that according to their own showing the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the petition two days before 27-2- 2002. They were therefore, required to file recrimination within 14 days but this time has gone by now.
5. In the said state of affairs I am pot at all inclined to interfere with the impugned orders of the learned Election Tribunal in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.