IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, HCJ 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman 
 
Civil Appeal No. 1002/2014 
(On 
appeal 
against the 
judgment 
dated 
18.7.2014 passed by the Election Tribunal, 
Bahawalpur 
and 
D.G.Khan 
Divisions, 
Bahawalpur in E. P. No. 13/2013) 
 
Sultan Mahmood Hinjra  
 
 
 
Appellant 
 
Versus 
 
Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar, etc. 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
 
Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shoukat, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch., AOR (Absent) 
 
For Respondent No. 1: 
 
Ch. Muhammad Wasi Zafar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
For Respondent No. 5: 
 
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
20.04.2016. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, J.- This appeal is directed against 
the judgment dated 18.7.2014 passed by the learned Election 
Tribunal, Bahawalpur & D. G. Khan Divisions, Bahawalpur, 
whereby the election petition filed by Respondent No. 1 bearing 
number E. P. No. 13/2013 against the Appellant and 17 others was 
partly accepted and the election of the Appellant was declared as 
void and re-election ordered. 
2. 
The relevant facts of the matter are that the Appellant and the 
Respondent 
contested 
elections 
for 
the 
seat 
of 
NA-176 
Muzaffargarh-I in the general election held on 11.05.2013. The 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
2 
 
Appellant, Sultan Mahmood Hinjra was declared as the returned 
candidate after securing a total of 87335 votes, whereas Respondent 
No. 1 secured a total of 74845 votes. Accordingly, the Appellant was 
notified as the Returned Candidate. The success of the Appellant 
was challenged by Respondent No. 1 by means of an Election 
Petition. It was averred in the election petition that the Appellant 
utilized his influence in the Education Department for the 
appointment of Presiding and Assistant Presiding Officers favorable 
to the Appellant and that the objections of Respondent No.1 in this 
regard were not attended to; the unofficial result of 60 polling 
stations reflected that the Respondent No.1 had secured 29608 votes 
whereas the Appellant had secured 9454 votes, thereafter the results 
stopped coming in, however, the next morning when the unofficial 
results were announced, the Appellant’s votes had drastically 
increased to a total of 87,335 and those of the Respondent No.1 were 
74,845, as such, it was stated that these results were obtained 
through the commission of corrupt and illegal practices as during 
the process of polling and counting of votes, the Presiding Officers 
and Assistant Presiding Officers committed corrupt and illegal 
practices in violation of the law. It was also canvassed in the petition 
that no notice under Section 39(1) of the Representation of Peoples 
Act, 1976 (the ROPA, 1976) was issued to the Respondent No.1 by 
the Returning Officer and that no date, time or place was fixed for 
the consolidation of the result thereby compelling the Respondent 
No.1 to submit an application in this regard. It was pleaded that 
upon receipt of the said application, the Returning Officer (RO) fixed 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
3 
 
15.05.2013 as the date of hearing, however, in the absence of the 
respondent, the learned RO illegally prepared a fictitious final result 
sheet dated 14.05.2013. It was stated that by relying on this forged 
and fictitious report and by mentioning incorrect facts in his order, 
the RO dismissed the said application. With regard to pre-elections 
disqualification, it was averred in the petition that the appellant 
knowingly 
misstated 
various 
facts 
and 
intentionally 
omitted/concealed important information in his nomination papers 
including inter alia the details of assets of his wife and children; that 
even though the Appellant mentioned that a criminal case bearing 
number 134/2000 was registered against him, but the same was 
cancelled pursuant to report of the Anti Corruption Establishment, 
however, no such report or order was produced before the learned 
RO. It was further averred in the petition that the Appellant is a 
defaulter of payment of Agricultural Income Tax, therefore, he is 
disqualified from being elected as a member of the National 
Assembly. In this regard it was stated in the petition that 
Appellant’s agricultural income was Rs. 4,000,000/- ,Rs. 3,500,000/- 
and Rs. 4,200,000/- for the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 
respectively, however, no tax was paid for the year 2010-11 on 
account of floods and paid only Rs. 1,950/- each in the year 2011-12 
& 2012-13. These admissions prove that he is a defaulter as even on 
the said declared income, the amount of income tax payable was 
much more than the one paid by him. The Respondent No.1 also 
averred in his election petition that the Appellant acquired 
government land on lease situated in Mouza Parhar Sharqi by 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
4 
 
making misstatements through deed No. 1793 dated 17.09.1991 and 
sold half of the same on that very day and the remaining half 
subsequently. It was contended that the Appellant has no house 
adjacent to the said government land and as such he misstated when 
he said that he required the land for extension of his dera. The 
Respondent No.1 also stated in his petition that the Appellant 
illegally procured allotment of a plot which was a part of a scheme 
prepared by the provincial government for the poor and the down 
trodden. The Respondent No.1 also stated in his petition that the 
process of the election was rife with instances of corrupt practices, in 
that, the ballot papers were handed over by the polling staff to the 
polling agents of the Appellant who marked stamps thereon, 
fictitious ballot papers were issued to favour the Appellant, the 
Appellant’s polling agents opened the ballot boxes and started 
process of counting of votes themselves, during which the polling 
agents of the Respondent No.1 were not allowed to be present and 
that to facilitate this, Presiding Officers and Assistant Presiding 
Officers prepared false reports. The Respondent No.1 also alleges in 
his petition that during counting of votes several ballot papers were 
observed to have not been issued at the concerned polling station, 
and that after the process of counting was complete, the Presiding 
Officers did not prepare statement of count in the prescribed form. 
Additionally, it was urged that the Presiding Officer also did not 
prepare the prescribed forms showing the number of ballot papers 
entrusted to him, number of unissued ballot papers, number of 
ballot papers taken out from the boxes and counted,  number of 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
5 
 
tendered ballot papers, number of challenged ballot papers and 
number of spoilt ballot papers and further that at all the polling 
stations, the Presiding Officers did not give any certified copy of 
statement of count and the ballot paper account to the polling agents 
of the Respondent No.1. To substantiate this allegation, it was 
averred that no statement of count or ballot paper account contains 
the signature of the polling agents of the Respondent No.1. The 
Respondent No.1 also averred in his petition that 40,000 bogus ballot 
papers/votes were added in the record to ensure the success of the 
Appellant. Further, that Mr. Asghar Ali Pachar Advocate, who 
appeared before the RO at the time of consolidation of result had not 
been appointed by Respondent No. 1 as his attorney. While relying 
on major differences of about 9,900 votes cast for NA-176 and for PP-
251 & PP-253 at the common polling stations of these constituencies, 
as well as in the unofficial and official results, inasmuch the votes of 
the Appellant increased but the number of votes of the Respondent 
No.1 were decreased, as a result the entire election was conducted in 
an illegal and non transparent manner, and accordingly prayed for 
the declaration that the election of the Appellant as void and that the 
Respondent No.1 be declared as returned candidate, or in the 
alternative, the election as a whole be declared as void. 
3. 
The Appellant contested the petition on legal as well as factual 
plane. It was urged that the petition merits dismissal for non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 55(3) of the 
ROPA, 1976. On facts, it was stated that no substantive material has 
been brought on record to substantiate the allegations contained in 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
6 
 
the petition. It was also asserted in the written statement that 
Respondent No. 1 committed corrupt and illegal practices through 
his son Bilal Mustafa Hussain and Ashraf Rind candidate for MPA 
to maneuver favourable result, who launched criminal assault 
alongwith 100 supporters to possess forcibly the ballot boxes and 
election record, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 232/2013. 
Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal 
framed as many as 15 issues. Thereafter, the parties were afforded 
an opportunity to adduce evidence. After completion of the trial, the 
learned Tribunal partly allowed the petition by declaring the 
election of the Appellant void, and ordering a re-election in NA-176, 
hence this appeal.  
3. 
Learned counsel for the Appellant at the very outset 
vehemently argued that the petition merited dismissal on the 
ground that the same had not been duly verified in terms of Section 
55 of the ROPA, 1976 and in accordance with Order VI rule-15(2) of 
CPC, instead the same has been verified by means of a separate 
affidavit. No date has been given at the foot of the petition. Learned 
counsel submits that the Tribunal erroneously arrived at the 
conclusion that verification through an affidavit is a suitable 
alternative to the mode of verification mandatorily prescribed under 
Section 55 of the ROPA, 1976. Learned counsel for the Appellant also 
contended that the signature on the petition and the affidavit are 
visibly different as such the signature has been fabricated; that the 
affidavit has been attested in Islamabad whereas the petition has 
been prepared in Multan, the dates of the petition and verification 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
7 
 
are different. Learned counsel submitted that as per the mandate of 
the ROPA, 1976, annexures to the petition also have to be verified, 
however, the affidavit annexed with the petition does not make 
reference to the annexures appended with the petition, therefore, the 
petition has not been verified in terms of Section 55 of ROPA, 1976. 
In this regard, he placed reliance on the cases of Feroze Ahmed 
Jamali vs. Masroor Ahmad Khan Jatoi and others (2016 SCMR 750), 
Lt. 
Col(R) 
Ghazanfar 
Abbas 
Shah 
vs. 
Mehr 
Khalid 
MahmoodSargana and others (2015 SCMR 1585),Inayatullah vs. 
Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and others (2014 SCMR 1477) and 
Malik Umar Aslam vs. Sumera Malik and another(PLD 2007 SC 
362). Regarding the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the 
Appellant submits that main allegation against the Appellant was 
that of corrupt and illegal practices, however, no substantial 
evidence in this regard has been produced and all that there is on 
the record is the sole statement of the Respondent No.1 as such 
allegation of rigging has not been proved, even the allegation of 
concealment of assets has not been proved through evidence. 
Further contended that during Appellant’s cross examination, no 
question regarding the allotment of land or default in payment of 
tax was put to him. Learned counsel contended that the learned 
Tribunal arrived at contradictory findings, inasmuch as it has been 
observed in the impugned judgment that the Appellant was not a 
defaulter, however, despite such observation, the Tribunal came to 
the conclusion that tax had not been paid by the Appellant, further 
submitted no such demand had been raised in this regard by the 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
8 
 
concerned authorities as such the Appellant could not be considered 
to be a defaulter strictosenso, and in this regard, reliance was placed 
on the case of Nadeem Sarwar vs. Election Commission of Pakistan 
through Election Commissioner, Punjab and 3 others(2013 CLC 
1481). Learned counsel submitted that while arriving at the 
conclusion that the Appellant illegally got land allotted to him, the 
Tribunal relied on an application which was not part of the record, 
as the same was not tendered in evidence and the same has been 
illegally scanned and made part of the judgment. In conclusion, 
learned counsel for the Appellant submits that non-observance of 
statutory provisions by election staff, unless shown to materially 
affect the result of the election in view of the fact that the margin of 
difference of votes is substantial, cannot be made basis to declare the 
whole election as void and in this regard placed reliance on the case 
of Muhammad SiddiqueBaloch vs. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others 
(PLD 2016 SC 97). Further argued that in election laws, the finding 
of disqualification must be based on positive evidence, as the 
standard of evidence in election matters is similar to that of a 
criminal trial. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot decide the same on 
the basis of conjectures and surmises. In this regard, he placed 
reliance on the cases of Muhammad Saeed and 4 others vs. Election 
Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan and others (PLD 1957 SC 91), 
Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak vs. S. M. Ayub and 2 others 
(PLD 1973 SC 160), Syed Saeed Hassan vs. Pyar Ali and 7 
others(PLD 1976 SC 6) and Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore 
through its Chairman vs. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
9 
 
Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1971 SC 811 (836)). He lastly 
argued that the Respondent No.1 had not filed any list of documents 
or witnesses as required by law, as such the election petition merited 
dismissal under Section 63 of the ROPA, 1976 due to non-
compliance of mandatory provisions Section 55 of the ROPA, 1976. 
4. 
Conversely, while supporting the impugned judgment, the 
learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that allotment of 
13 marlas of commercial property was illegally procured through a 
simple application moved to the Chief Minister, who was not 
empowered to allow the same. States that land was allegedly 
required by the Appellant for extension of his dera, but said land was 
not adjacent to Appellant’s property and further, the said land was 
further alienated on the same day and adverted to Registry of Sale 
Deed of Ahata at pages-393 & 435 regarding sale to Dr. Faiz 
Muhammad, as such making false statement and getting Ahata of 2 
kanals and then selling both the properties to make money 
disqualified the Appellant to contest election as he was not Sadiq and 
Ameen. In support of his arguments he relied upon the judgments of 
this Court delivered in the cases of Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and 
others vs. Syed Hassan Murtaza and others (PLD 2005 SC 600) and 
Lt. Col(R) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah vs. Mehr Khalid Mahmood 
Sargana and others (2015 SCMR 1585). 
5. 
We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the 
parties and also perused the material placed on the record as well as 
the impugned judgment with their able assistance. 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
10 
 
6. 
Since the learned counsel for the Appellant at the very outset 
has raised the question with regard to the maintainability of the 
election petition filed by the Respondent No. 1, hence we are 
forfeited to address this issue first. It was objected by the learned 
counsel for the Appellant that the petition had not been verified in 
terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the ROPA, 1976 
read with Order VI Rule 15 CPC as neither the petition nor the 
annexures or schedules appended thereto had been verified, but 
instead an affidavit had been belatedly filed to cure such defect. It 
would be pertinent to reproduce the above quoted provisions of 
law: 
55. Contents of Petition:- 
(1)…………………. 
(2)…………………. 
(3) Every election petition and every schedule or annex to that 
petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the 
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 
1908), for the verification of pleadings.  
Order VI Rule 15.Verification of Pleadings (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 pleadings, what he verifies of his 
own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received 
and believed to be true.  
(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.”  
 
From the above it is crystal clear that verification of an election 
petition in the prescribed manner is a mandatory requirement and 
that too in accordance with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
11 
 
C.P.C. specifying to numbered paragraphs of the pleadings what he 
verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon 
information received and believed to be true. From the record it 
reveals that the Appellant while filing his election petition did not 
comply with the mandatory requirements with regard to the 
verification of the election petition and to cure such defect 
subsequently submitted an affidavit in this regard, wherein the 
entire contents of his election petition were reproduced. It would be 
pertinent to mention at this juncture that although the provisions 
relating to the verification of pleadings are generally directory in 
nature, the position is different in election laws by virtue of Section 
63 of the ROPA, 1976 which casts upon the Tribunal a duty to 
dismiss the election petition if the provisions of Sections 54 or 55 of 
the ROPA, 1976 have not been complied with, as such its compliance 
has been held to be mandatory in nature by virtue of the penal 
consequences prescribed under Section 63 of the ROPA, 1976. 
7. 
We would now proceed to examine the affidavit, which finds 
mention at the foot of the petition and purportedly serves to verify 
the same. In the said affidavit, the Respondent/Election Petitioner 
has reproduced the entire contents of his election petition. In order 
to determine the sufficiency of verification by affidavit, it would be 
useful to reproduce the provisions of High Courts Rules and Orders, 
Chapter 12, Volume No. IV, Rules No. 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 as these 
have material bearing on the case at hand:- 
“11. Identification of Deponent- Every person making an affidavit 
shall , if not personally known to the Court, magistrate 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
12 
 
12. Mode of attestation-  
14. Attesting Officers duty 
15. Attesting, signing and making of affidavit. 
16. Manner of administering oath to deponent. 
- 
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 paragraphs 12, 14 and /5 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. 
 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. " 
 
Placing reliance on the case of Lt Col (R) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah vs 
Khalid MehmoodSargana (2015 SCMR 1585), would be beneficial 
here, wherein, the issue of verification by an affidavit was agitated 
before this Court and while referring to the above Rules, this Court 
highlighted the following pre-requisites for a valid affidavit: 
1. 
Identification of Deponent (Rule 11) 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
13 
 
2. 
 
Particulars of deponent and identifier to be mentioned at the 
 
foot of the affidavit (Rule 11) 
 
3. 
 
Time and place of 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 them. (Rule 12) 
 
5. 
 
Date, Signature and name of the 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 the 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) 
 
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)” 
 
When the affidavit at hand is examined in the light of the above it 
transpires that certain essential requirements are missing therefrom. 
Firstly, it has not been mentioned whether the Respondent No.1 was 
administered oath by the Oath Commissioner before the attestation 
was made. Secondly, it has not been specified whether the 
Respondent 
No.1 
was 
duly 
identified 
before 
the 
Oath 
Commissioner. In this regard, it has simply been stated at the foot of 
the affidavit that the Respondent No.1 was present before the Oath 
Commissioner in person, however, the details of the person 
identifying the Respondent No.1 have not been mentioned whereas 
according to the above quoted provisions, the Oath Commissioner is 
bound to specify at the foot of the affidavit the name and description 
of the person by whom identification of the deponent was made and 
in this regard a certificate has to be appended. Furthermore, it is also 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
14 
 
not clear from the affidavit that the Respondent No.1 was identified 
with reference to his ID card and in this regard, no ID card number 
is given, as such the identification does not seem to have been made. 
There is yet, another aspect to the matter. The affidavit in question 
does not make any reference to the numbered paragraphs contained 
therein which the Respondent No.1 verifies on his own knowledge 
and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be 
true. Further, the affidavit in question also does not make any 
reference to the verification of the annexures appended along with 
the petition, which although have been mentioned in the said 
affidavit.  
8. 
This Court in a chain of judgments has addressed the issue of 
verification of pleadings wherefrom reproducing the relevant 
portions would be beneficial here. In the case of Zia ur Rehman Vs. 
Syed Ahmed Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1015) it has been held 
as under:- 
“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 consequences 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 
Rehaman (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 Syued Iftikhar Hussain Gilani though mentions 
that it is on oath, the oath was neither verified nor attested by a 
person authorized to administer oath and as such it could not be 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
15 
 
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.” 
And in the case of Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others Vs. Syed 
Hassan Murtaza and others (PLD 2005 SC 600), this Court has laid 
the following guidelines:- 
“The verification on oath of the contents of an election petition, is 
provided under section 55(3) of the Representation of the People 
Act of 1976, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). It provides 
that every election petition and every schedule or annexure to 
petition shall be signed by the appellant and verified in the 
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Code 
contains such provisions under Order VI, rule 15, which requires 
the verification of pleadings, on oath. Such verification is not to 
be signed in routine by the deponent but being on oath, it 
requires to be attested either by the Oath Commissioner or any 
other authority competent to administer oath. It needs hardly to 
be emphasized that every oath is to be practically administered. 
So far as, the provisions of civil law are concerned, such 
verifications generally are of directory nature. An omission to do 
so can be rectified subsequently during trial and even the Court 
can direct such rectification. While, on the other hand, under 
election laws such verification on oath is mandatory because of 
being followed by penal consequences under section 63(a) of the 
Act that makes it mandatory for the Tribunal to dismiss election 
petition if the provisions of sections 54 and 55 of the Act have not 
been complied with. Similar view was taken by this Court in 
Iqbal Zafar Jhagra’s case (2000 SCMR 250), though related to the 
Senate elections. It is, therefore, settled that the verification on 
oath of an election petition though mannered in accordance with 
civil law yet it entails upon penal consequences and hence is 
mandatory.” 
 
9. 
In the above perspective, and while placing reliance on the 
case of Lt. Col (R) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah (supra), the affidavit at 
hand, can hardly be considered to be a proper verification. The 
learned Election Tribunal therefore, erred in holding that the election 
petition had been duly verified. In our considered opinion, the 
election petition had not been duly verified in accordance with law 
and even the affidavit annexed thereto could also not be considered 
C. A. No. 1002/2014 
 
 
16 
 
to be proper verification as it failed to meet the criteria mentioned above, 
therefore, the election petition merited outright dismissal by the election 
tribunal.  
10. 
In conclusion to our discussion we are of the opinion that when an 
objection with regard to the maintainability of an election petition for non-
compliance of a mandatory provision is raised then the Tribunal should 
decide that very objection first because if such objection sustained then the 
Tribunal left with no option but to dismiss the election petition. 
Mentioning the case of Zia ur Rehman (supra) would again be beneficial 
here wherein it has been held as under:- 
 “7.         …………… If an objection is raised with regard to 
maintainability of such a petition for non-compliance of a 
mandatory provision, the Court/Tribunal should decide that 
preliminary objection. Because if that objection is sustained then 
the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the 
petition……………”  
 
11. 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed, 
impugned judgment dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Election Tribunal is 
set aside and the election petition filed by the Respondent No.1 is hereby 
dismissed under Section 63 of the ROPA, 1976 as not being in conformity 
with the mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the ROPA, 1976. 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge  
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’