IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 18.3.2014 of the 
Election Tribunal, Faisalabad passed in Election 
Petition No.75/2013) 
 
Lt. Col. (Retired) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana and others 
Respondent(s) 
… 
For the Appellant(s) 
: 
Sheikh Ahsan-ud-Din, ASC 
 
For Respondent No.1 
: 
Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zafar, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
: 
27.05.2015 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- This appeal under Section 
67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) has been 
filed against the judgment dated 18.3.2014 passed by the learned 
Election Tribunal, Faisalabad, whereby the election petition 
initiated by the appellant against respondent No.1 (the respondent; the 
relevant candidate) has been dismissed on the score that such petition 
is not duly verified per the provisions of Section 55(3) of the ROPA, 
and therefore is liable to be dismissed in terms of Section 63 of the 
said Act. In the context of the above, it may be pertinent to 
mention here, that the verification part of the election petition 
reads as follows:- 
“VERIFICATION 
 
I, Col.(R) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah S/o Muhammad 
Nawaz Shah, Muslim, Adult, resident of Haveli Bahadur 
Shah, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang, do hereby state on 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 2 - 
oath that whatever is stated above is true to the best of 
my knowledge, information and belief or is based upon 
legal advice received by me in the above suit which I 
verily believe to be true. 
 
D E P O N E N T 
 
The deponent above named is known to me and 
is identified by me to the Commissioner for taking 
affidavit. 
 
A D V O C A T E”    
(note: underneath this there are two stamps of the Oath 
Commissioner, Cantt. Lahore, namely, Muhammad Siddique. 
Both bears his initials and one of those postulates 
“ATTESTED”; however there is no date mentioned or written 
by the Oath Commissioner or the fact that before the 
attestation any oath was administered to the appellant, the 
election petitioner.) 
 
With the election petition, an affidavit of the appellant was also 
enclosed, which is as reproduced below:- 
 
“AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MAIN PETITION 
 
 
I, Lt. Col.(R) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah s/o 
Muhammad Nawaz Shah R/o Haveli Bahadur Shah, 
Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang, do hereby solemnly state 
on oath as under:- 
1. 
I say that I am the Petitioner in the above case 
and as such fully conversant with the facts of the 
petition. 
2. 
I say that the contents of the main petition may 
kindly be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit as 
the same have not been repeated here for the sake of 
brevity. 
3. 
That whatever stated hereinabove is true and 
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
DEPONENT” 
(note: same is the position of the affidavit, as that of 
verification.) 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 3 - 
The learned Election Tribunal while considering the above two 
documents summarily dismissed the election petition due to the 
following reason:- 
“Now comes the question of verification of the Election Petition 
itself. The returned candidate has objection to maintainability of 
the petition for want of due verification. The original Election 
petition at page 7 contains a verification clause signed by the 
deponent but the Oath Commissioner has merely put an 
attestation stamp, without certifying administration of Oath and 
giving the date of administration of Oath. A separate affidavit is 
also annexed to the petition at page-8 but, unfortunately, the 
same procedure was adopted, and no date of administration of 
Oath was provided by the Oath Commissioner and no date of 
administration of Oath was described. Such a procedure is 
surely violative of the provisions of Section 55(3) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1976 and it would necessarily 
attract the penal provision of dismissal of the Election Petition 
under Section 63(a) of the Representation of the People Act 
1976.” 
   
2.  
 
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that 
prior to the impugned judgment, the objection about due 
verification 
of 
the 
election 
petition 
was 
raised 
by 
the 
respondent/returned 
candidate 
before 
the 
learned 
Election 
Tribunal, but the Tribunal held that the petition was duly and 
validly verified. The respondent challenged inter alia the order 
through writ petition(s) (note:- some other orders of this tribunal were also 
assailed) before the learned High Court. The matter was remanded 
on some other points and not on the question of verification. The 
order pertaining to verification was never set aside, rather was kept 
intact. Therefore, in light of this legal position, not only will the 
principle of res judicata be applicable, rather the Tribunal in law 
shall have no authority to review its earlier decision. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 4 - 
It is also argued, that omission on part of the oath 
commissioner in mentioning, at the time of attestation of 
verification, that oath has been duly administered to the appellant 
cannot be made a reason for depriving the appellant of his very 
valuable legal right; he cannot be knocked out on technical 
grounds. This is neither the purport nor the spirit of law. It is 
further argued, that where an election petition is duly supported 
by an affidavit, notwithstanding any lapse in verification of the 
petition, such affidavit should be treated as due compliance with 
the requirement of verification of the election petition. On this 
score, therefore, the election petition could not be dismissed.  
It is lastly submitted that no writ was competent against the 
interim order of the Election Tribunal, therefore the order of 
remand by the High Court dated 31.10.2013 is without jurisdiction 
and obviously the impugned order is absolutely invalid. In support 
of his various contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant 
has relied upon the judgments reported as Malik Umar Aslam 
Versus Sumera Malik and another (PLD 2007 SC 362), Engr. 
Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others Versus Khalilur Rehman and 4 
others (2000 SCMR 250), Moulvi Abdul Qadir and others 
Versus Moulvi Abdul Wassay and others (2010 SCMR 1877), 
Zia-ur-Rehman Versus Syed Ahmed Hussain and others (2014 
SCMR 1015), Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj and others Versus 
The Election Commission of Pakistan and others (2015 SCMR 
233), Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others Versus Syed Hassan 
Murtaza and others (PLD 2005 SC 600), S.M. Waseem Ashraf 
Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O 
Housing and Works, Islamabad and others  (2013 SCMR 338).  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 5 - 
3. 
 
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent, 
Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zafar, has submitted that there are three 
shortcomings in the verification of the election petition as well as 
the affidavit, in that, it was not mentioned that oath had been 
administered by the oath commissioner at the time of attestation of 
both those documents which is mandatory/imperative in terms of 
Articles 101 and 102 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; no 
date and place has been mentioned as to when the petition was 
verified and attested. The verification of the election petition 
(mentioned in this petition) being flawed and defective cannot be made 
valid and rectified through an affidavit.  
Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted 
that the noted is no affidavit in the eyes of law and for the 
purposes of elucidating as to what an affidavit is and should be, he 
has referred to the format (of affidavit) given in High Court Rules and 
Orders, Chapter No.12, Volume No. IV, Rule 9, Sub-Rules (iii) and 
(iv) and Rules No.11, 12, 15 and 16. In this context reliance has 
also been placed upon the judgment reported as Bashir Ahmad 
Versus Abdul Wahid (PLD 1995 Lahore 98) and Alam Zaib Khan 
Versus Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 2 others (1998 CLC 83). 
He has further argued that on the basis of the judgment reported 
as S.M. Waseem Ashraf supra, the reasons provided by the learned 
Tribunal are apt and cogent for the dismissal of the election 
petition (note:- Learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal has relied upon page No. 80 of 
the paper book filed by him or the CMA filed by learned counsel for the other side as also the 
judgment reported as Moulvi Abdul Qadir supra). 
4. 
 
Heard. The main argument propounded by the learned 
counsel for the appellant is that where an election petition is 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 6 - 
supported by a valid affidavit, notwithstanding any deficiencies 
and flaws in the verification of the election petition, such affidavit 
should be treated as a substitute for verification of the election 
petition and therefore in such circumstances, due compliance with 
the requirement of verification of the election petition shall be 
established. In order to cater to this proposition, we find it 
expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of the Sardarzada 
Zafar Abbas case, upon which reliance has been placed by the 
learned counsel for the appellant. This Court, in the said case, held 
as under:- 
 
“We have considered this aspect thoroughly and have come to 
the conclusion that in the given circumstances, there is no 
material difference between a vaerification on oath and a 
verification through an affidavit. An affidavit is a sworn 
statement in writing while a verification is a confirmation in law 
by oath in order to establish the truth, accuracy and reality of a 
statement of fact. Thus, there is practically no difference 
whatsoever by verifying a statement on oath and verifying the 
same statement on affidavit. It also loses significance when such 
affidavit on oath is attested by the authority competent to 
administer oath…” 
 
It is in the light of the above law (Sardarzada Zafar Abbas Case) that the 
question of whether the election petition was duly verified either 
through verification on oath or through an affidavit needs to be 
established. In order to do so, we will first have to look at the legal 
requirements for both, a valid verification on oath and verification 
through an affidavit and then proceed onto assessing whether in 
the instant case either or both of the documents met the 
requirements laid out in law and were valid or otherwise.  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 7 - 
5. 
 
With regards to verification of election petitions on 
oath, it is clear from the provisions of Section 55(3) of the ROPA 
that an election petition has to be verified in accordance with the 
provisions of Order 6 Rule 15, CPC which provide the basics as to 
how pleadings have to be verified, what shall be the contents of the 
verification of pleadings and how they have to be attested by the 
oath commissioner when read with other relevant provisions of 
law. Be that as it may, in addition to the law cited by both the 
sides (from some other dicta), it is conclusively settled by this Court that 
verification of an election petition is mandatory and a petition 
which lacks proper verification shall be summarily dismissed by 
the tribunal, even if the respondent has not asked for or prayed for 
its dismissal1. 
In reference to the above, it shall be advantageous to 
reproduce the following part of the judgment reported as Zia-ur-
Rehman supra wherein it has been categorically held:-  
“8. 
Every election petition and every schedule or annexure 
to the election  petition  has  to  be  signed by  the   petitioner  
and  verified  in the  manner  laid down  in  Civil   Procedure  
Code.  Rule 15 of Order VI of C.P.C. lays down the procedure of 
verification, which reads as under:-- 
15. (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the 
time being in force, 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. 
(2) 
The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the 
numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies 
of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon 
information. 
                                                
1 Malik Umar Aslam Versus Sumera Malik and another (PLD 2007 SC 362) 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 8 - 
(3) 
The verification shall be signed by the person making it 
and shall state the date on which and the place at which 
it was signed. 
9. 
The penal consequence of non-compliance with sections 
54 and 55 of the Representation of the People Act is provided in 
section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, which reads 
as follows:-- 
63. 
Dismissal 
of 
petition 
during 
trial.---The 
Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition, if-- 
(a) 
the provisions of section 54 or section 55 have not been 
complied with; or 
(b) 
if the petitioner fails to make the further deposit required 
under subsection (4) of section 62." 
10. 
Admittedly both the election petitions filed by the 
respondents in the afore-mentioned appeals were not verified on 
oath in the manner prescribed under the afore-quoted provision. 
If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular 
manner it has to be done accordingly, otherwise it would not be 
in-compliance with the legislative intent. Non-compliance of this 
provision carries a penal consequence in terms of section 63 of 
the Representation of the People Act whereas no penal provision 
is prescribed for non-compliance with Order VI, Rule 15 of the 
Civil Procedure Code. The effect of non-compliance of section 
55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 came up for 
consideration before this Court in Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalilur 
Rehman (2000 SCMR 250) wherein at page 290 it was candidly 
held that "the verification of pleadings has been provided under 
Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C. which when read with section 39, 
C.P.C., clearly shows that the pleadings are to be verified on 
oath and the oath is to be administered by a person, who is duly 
authorized in that behalf. It is an admitted position that the 
petition filed by Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani though mentions 
that it is on oath, the oath was neither verified nor attested by a 
person authorised to administer oath and as such it could not be 
said that requirements of section 36 of the Act were complied 
with. We have considered the reasons given by the learned 
Tribunal in holding that the petition filed by Syed Iftikhar 
Hussain Gillani did not comply the provisions of section 36 of 
the Act and are of the view that these reasons do not suffer from 
any legal infirmity." 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 9 - 
 
 
6. 
 
Taking into account the verification of the election 
petition independent of the affidavit, it has been conspicuously 
noticed that there is no date or place mentioned in the verification 
i.e. at what date and what place the verification was made by the 
appellant. The two stamps of the oath commissioner, Lahore Cantt, 
affixed at the bottom of the verification also do not postulate the 
date on which the verification was made by the election petitioner. 
Besides, it is not reflected from the verification whether the 
appellant was present at the time of verification before the oath 
commissioner because he has not been identified with reference to 
his national identity card, rather by some Advocate, whose name 
and particulars are not even mentioned on the said verification. 
Therefore on account of the deficiencies identified above, we hardly 
find the verification to be valid in terms of spirit of provisions of 
Section 55(3) of the ROPA and in line with the law laid down by 
this Court in various dicta. Resultantly, we have no hesitation to 
hold that the verification is not in accord with the law.  
 7. 
 
We shall now turn to the second limb of the 
proposition i.e. whether the affidavit enclosed with the election 
petition was sufficient for establishing that the election petition 
has been duly verified in accordance with law or not. For this 
purpose, so as to determine the prerequisites of a valid affidavit, 
the provisions of High Court Rule and Orders, Chapter No.12, 
Volume No.IV, Rules No.11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are reproduced 
below:- 
 
“11. Identification of deponent. Every person 
making an affidavit shall, if not personally known to the 
Court, Magistrate or other officer appointed to administer 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 10 -
the oath or affirmation, be identified to such Court, 
Magistrate or officer by some person known to him; and 
such Court, Magistrate or officer shall specify at the foot of 
the affidavit, the same and description of the person by 
whom the identification is made, as well as the time and 
place of the making of the affidavit. 
 
12. Mode of attestation. The Court, Magistrate, or 
other officer as aforesaid, before whom an affidavit is 
made, shall certify at the foot of the affidavit the fact of the 
making of such affidavit before him, and shall enter the 
date and subscribe his signature to such certificate, and 
shall, for the purpose of identification, mark date, and 
initial every exhibit referred to in the affidavit. The name of 
the verifying authority must be signed in full, and care must 
be taken that his proper designation as a Civil Court or 
Magistrate is added. 
 
14. Attesting Officer’s duty. If any person making 
an affidavit appears to the Court, Magistrate or other 
officer administering the oath or affirmation, to be ignorant 
of the language in which it is written, or to be illiterate, or 
not fully to understand the contents of the affidavit, such 
Court, Magistrate or officer shall cause the affidavit to be 
read and explained to him in a language which both he and 
such Court, Magistrate or officer understand; either doing 
so himself, or causing another person to do so in his 
presence. When an affidavit is read and explained as herein 
provided, such Court, Magistrate or other officer as 
aforesaid shall certify in writing at the foot of the affidavit 
that it has been so read and explained, and that the 
declarant seemed perfectly to understand the same at the 
time of making it. 
 
15. Attesting, signing and verification or affidavit. 
Every affidavit shall be signed or marked and verified at 
foot by the declarant and attested by the Court, Magistrate 
or other officer administering the oath or affirmation, the 
verification, by the declarant shall be in one of the forms 
attached thereto, and shall be signed or marked by the 
declarant. The attestation of the Court, Magistrate or other 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 11 -
officer administering the oath or affirmation shall also be 
in the form prescribed below. 
 
16. Manner of administering oath to deponent. In 
administering an oath or affirmation to the declarant in the 
case of any affidavit under the Code of Civil Procedure, the 
Court, Magistrate or other officer appointed in that behalf 
shall be guided by the rules under the Indian Oaths Act, 
1878, printed in Part A of this Chapter and shall follow the 
form of verification by oath or affirmation thereto 
appended. 
I-FORM OF VERIFICATION OF OATH OR 
AFFIRAMTION 
(Vide paragraph 15 above) 
 
Oath. 
 
I solemnly swear that this may declaration is true, 
that it conceals nothing, and that no part of it is false 
………………… so help me God. 
 
Affirmation. 
 
I solemnly affirm that this my declaration is true, 
that it conceals nothing, and that no part of it is false. 
II-FORM OF CERTIFICATE 
(vide paragraph 12, 14 and 15 above) 
 
Certified that the above 
was declared 
on 
……………… (here enter oath)/affirmation as the case may 
be) before me this ……………… (date) day of ……………… 
(month) ……………… (of 19     , at ……………… (place) in 
the district of (name of district) ……………… by 
……………… (full name and description of declarant) who 
is ……………… here enter “personally known to me” or 
identified at (time and place of identification) by (full name 
and descriptor: of person marking the identification), who 
is personally known to me”. 
(Full Signature) A. B., 
(Officer) District Judge (or as the case may be) of 
……………… 
II-A 
 
The exhibits marked A, B, C (as the case may be) 
above referred to are annexed hereto under this date and 
my initials. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 12 -
 
Certified further that this affidavit has been read 
and explained to (name) ……………… the declarant who 
seemed perfectly to understand the same at the time of 
making thereof.” 
 
From the High Court Rules and Orders reproduced in the 
preceding para, it is clear to our mind that an affidavit has to meet 
the following requisites: 
1. 
Identification of deponent (Rule 11) 
 
2. 
Particulars of deponent and identifier to be mentioned 
at the foot of the affidavit (Rule 11) 
 
3. 
Time and place of the making of the affidavit to be 
specified (Rule 11) 
 
4. 
Certification by Court/Magistrate/Other Officer at the 
foot of the affidavit that such affidavit was made 
before him (Rule 12) 
 
5. 
Date, Signature and name of office and designation of 
the Court/Magistrate/Other Officer to be subscribed 
underneath the Certification (Rule 12) 
 
6. 
Every exhibit referred to in the affidavit to be dated 
and initialed by the Court/Magistrate/Other Officer 
(Rule 12)  
 
7. 
Where deponent of an affidavit does not understand 
the 
contents 
of 
an 
affidavit, 
the 
Court/ 
Magistrate/Other officer administering oath must read 
out the contents of an affidavit to such person so that 
he understands. Where such is the case, the 
Court/Magistrate/Other officer shall note at the foot of 
the affidavit that the affidavit has been read out to the 
deponent and he understands its contents (Rule 14) 
 
8. 
Deponent to sign/mark and verify the affidavit and 
the Court, Magistrate or other officer administering the 
oath or affirmation to attest the affidavit (Rule 15) 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 13 -
 
9. 
Oath 
to 
be 
administered 
by 
the 
Court/ 
Magistrate/Other officer in accordance with the Indian 
Oaths Act, 1878 and affidavit to be verified by deponent 
and attested by Court/Magistrate/Other officer on 
forms appended thereto (Rule 16) 
 
 
The format of an affidavit is as has been mentioned in the 
law reproduced supra. But in the affidavit in question, it is 
conspicuous that the following essential elements are missing:- 
 
a) date on which and the place where the verification was 
made, have not been specified; 
 
b) no date has been mentioned on the stamp(s) of attestation 
fixed by the Oath Commissioner; 
 
c) it has also not been mentioned that the appellant was 
administered oath by the Oath Commissioner before the 
attestation was made; 
 
d) whether the appellant was duly identified before the Oath 
Commissioner is another important question the answer to 
which is also not clear from the said verification; 
 
e) it does not appear from the affidavit that appellant was 
identified with reference to his ID card which is the ordinary, 
usual and general course for identification of a person or 
even by an Advocate; and 
 
f) no ID Card Number is given; the identification does not seem 
to have been made; the particulars of the identifier are also 
conspicuously missing. 
 
This affidavit, therefore, can hardly be considered to be 
verification of the election petition in terms of the law. To reiterate 
the reasons, neither have the date and place of attestation been 
specified nor was the appellant properly identified. With regards to 
what a valid affidavit should contain, we also draw support from 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 14 -
the judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case reported as 
Bashir Ahmed Vs. Abdul Wahid (PLD 1995 Lahore 98), which in 
our view is good law. The relevant portion of the said judgment 
reads as follows:-  
“ The main requirements of the affidavit according to the High 
Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Volume IV, Part B, Chapter 
12-B, Rules 8, 9, 14 and 15 are:- 
i. 
the name of the Court, title of the proceedings; 
ii. 
subject of the suit or petition; 
iii. 
name of the deponent, the date and place; 
iv. 
the affidavit is to be divided into paragraphs which shall 
be numbered consecutively and shall be confined to 
distinct portion of the subject; 
v. 
the deponent, other than the party to the suit, shall be 
described in such a manner as would serve to identify 
him clearly i.e. full name, father’s name, profession or 
trade and place of his residence;  
vi. 
the declarant in affidavit while referring the facts within 
his knowledge must do so directly and positively using 
the words ‘I affirm’ or ’I make oath and say’; 
vii. 
when making reference as to the information obtained 
from others, the declarant must use the expression ‘I am 
informed’, and should add ‘and verily believe it to be 
true’, or he may state the source from which he received 
such information. Every affidavit shall  be signed or 
thumb-marked; and 
viii. 
 it shall be verified in accordance with the verification in 
the form given in Rule 16 of the High Court (Lahore) 
Rules and Orders. The verification shall be signed and 
thumb-marked by the declaration. The affidavit shall be 
attested by the Oath Commissioner. 
 
One can divide the affidavit into following three parts in 
accordance with the above requirements:- 
1) 
name of the Court, title and subject of the proceedings 
and name etc. of the deponent; 
2) 
declaration of facts sought to be proved by the affidavit 
duly signed by the declarant; and 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 15 -
3) 
verification duly signed by the deponent and attested by 
the Oath Commissioner.” 
 
This affidavit, even if considered to be verification of the 
election petition in terms of the Sardarzada Zafar Abbas supra, as 
mentioned earlier, can hardly be held to be proper verification. It 
may be pertinent to mention here, that neither does the affidavit in 
the instant case fulfill the requirements in the High Court Rules 
and Orders supra nor does it meet the essentials laid out in the 
judgment reported as Bashir Ahmad supra. We, therefore, are of 
the candid view that the affidavit in question is a flawed one. 
 
It is also relevant to note here that in an ordinary lis (suit 
etc.) requiring verification and support by an affidavit, if the 
verification or affidavit is flawed, such lapse may be considered an 
irregularity and be treated as a curable defect, but we are not 
laying down any hard and fast rule, because the matter before us 
is not pertaining to ordinary litigation, however in the case of an 
election petition the law is very stringent and imperative. Therefore 
if the election petition has not been verified in accordance with law, 
this cannot be treated as a curable defect and the Election 
Tribunal particularly after the lapse of the period of limitation 
prescribed for filing of election petition, cannot permit the election 
petitioner to cure the same. 
8. 
 
The question now which remains for resolution is 
whether the omission on part of the Oath Commissioner in 
mentioning, in the attestation of verification or the affidavit, if the 
oath had been administered to the appellant/ deponent, shall have 
the effect of invalidating the election petition. As regards the above, 
suffice it to say that according to the provisions of Article 129, 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 16 -
illustration (e) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, there is 
presumption of correctness attached to an official act and it could 
not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent that 
the oath commissioner who is appointed by the respective High 
Courts under the law shall be performing the official acts for which 
he 
was 
appointed. 
However, 
he 
has 
stressed 
that 
the 
administration 
of 
oath 
before 
attestation 
by 
the 
Oath 
Commissioner should not be presumed in this case rather should 
reflect from the contents of attestation. 
We have applied our mind to this aspect of the matter and 
hold that in order to meet the real object and the spirit of the 
election laws which require verification on oath, in an ideal 
situation, the Oath Commissioner at the time of verification of the 
petition etc. and also the affidavit, must record and endorse 
verification/attestation 
that 
the 
oath 
has 
been 
actually, 
physically 
and 
duly 
administered 
to 
the 
election 
petitioner/deponent. But as the law has not been very clear till 
now, we should resort to the principle of presumption stipulated by 
Article 129(e) ibid in this case for avoiding the knock out of the 
petition for an omission and lapse on part of the Oath 
Commissioner. But for the future we hold that where the election 
petitioner or the affidavit is sought to be attested by the Oath 
Commissioner, the election petitioner shall insist and shall ensure 
that the requisite endorsement about the administration of oath is 
made, otherwise the election petition/affidavit shall not be 
considered to have been attested on oath and thus the election 
petition shall be liable to be, inter alia, dismissed on the above 
score. We consciously and deliberately neither apply this rule to 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 17 -
the instant case nor any other matter pending at any forum (election 
tribunal or in appeals). 
Resultantly, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the 
learned counsel for the respondents that the omission on part of 
the oath commissioner must be made the basis of dismissal of the 
petition of the appellant. This, as we have mentioned above, should 
be taken into account in case of future election petitions, i.e. filed 
after enunciation of the law herein laid down.  
9. 
 
With regards to the argument raised by the learned 
counsel for the appellant that in an earlier order, the learned 
Tribunal had held that the verification of the election petition was 
valid and, therefore, it could not review such order, it may be held 
that inter alia such order dated 12.9.2013 was challenged by the 
respondent in various writ petitions and with the consent of the 
learned counsel for the parties all such orders including the one 
which held that the verification was valid, were set aside. The 
relevant portion of the judgment of the learned High Court is 
reproduced as below:- 
“In this view of the matter with the consent of the parties, the 
impugned orders are set-aside. The matter is remanded to the 
Election Tribunal to hear both sides, examine the various pleas 
raised by them in light of the case law cited by both sides which 
has been noted above and decide the matter afresh through a 
reasoned order.” 
 
10. 
 
We will now respond to the argument that intra-
locutory orders passed by the learned Tribunal could not be 
challenged in writ petition to propound which reliance had been 
placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj 
and others supra. As regards the above, suffice it to say that the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2014 
 
- 18 -
order of the learned High Court was passed on 31.10.2013. This 
order was never challenged by the appellant before the Supreme 
Court, rather the order was a consent order and, therefore the law 
laid down in the judgment supra shall have no relevance to the 
matter in hand. 
11. 
 
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that 
election petition of the appellant has not been verified in 
accordance with law and same is true with regards to the affidavit. 
The case of the appellant squarely falls within the mischief of the 
provisions of Section 55(3) of the ROPA and thus it warranted 
summary dismissal per the provisions of Section 63 of the said Act. 
The appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed and the 
impugned judgment of the learned Election Tribunal dated 
18.3.2014 is upheld. These are the reasonings of our short order of 
even date which reads as under:- 
“For the reasons to be recorded later, this appeal has 
no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.”  
  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
27th May 2015 
Approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/*