IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 4.2.2014 of the Election Tribunal,  
Rawalpindi passed in E.P. No.187/2013/Rwp/04/0013) 
 
 
Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan 
Appellant(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
Returning Officer, PP-12, etc 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
  
For Respondent No.2 
: Mr. Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan, ASC 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 22.04.2015 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- The appellant and respondent 
No.2 (the respondent) contested the (General) election for PP-12, Rawalpindi. 
Respondent is the returned candidate, whereas appellant is the runner 
up, who filed an election petition challenging the election of the former. 
An objection was raised by the respondent that such petition is not 
duly verified and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed in terms of 
provisions of Article 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 
(the Act). However, the objection was overruled by the learned Election 
Tribunal holding that the petition is duly verified. Subsequently, in 
furtherance to the above challenge the appellant moved an application 
seeking amendment in the election petition so as to add two grounds 
i.e. ‘h’ and ‘i’. The claim for seeking amendment(s) obviously was  
founded on the plea that such grounds (amendments) are expedient and 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
 
 
 
-  2 -
imperative for the cause of the appellant. This request was allowed by 
the Tribunal and two grounds, mentioned above, were added and an 
amended petition was filed. The added grounds challenging the 
election of the respondent read as under:- 
“h. 
That the respondent namely Mr Ejaz Khan Jazi has been declared 
returned candidate on the basis of fake documents attached by him 
while contesting the elections from PP-12 in the recent elections. It is 
important to mention here that Mr. Ejaz Khan Jazi has not even 
passed Intermediate. Prior to this, he contested elections in 2012 
when the condition of BA was a pre-requisite. Thereafter he contested 
zimni elections in 2008 and in 2009.  Article 62 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 fully applies/attracts to his case. 
Likewise, Article 63 of the Constitution completely debars Mr. Ejaz 
Khan Jazi to contest elections. He does not possess the qualification 
required for a Member of Provincial Assembly, hence he was not 
eligible at all to contest the elections but to my utter surprise, he has 
been declared as a returned candidate. He is thus liable to be 
disqualified. Detail of letters issued to the respondent for production 
of Intermediate certificate, BA and others degrees is as under:- 
 
(1)  
Notification No.Admin/94-835 dated  6.7.1994 issued 
to Mr. Ejaz Khan Jazi by the Assistant Registrar that 
admission of the student was cancelled as he had 
sought admission on the basis of a fake F.A. Marks 
sheet in M.Sc Ist Semester Spring 1992. 
 
(2)  
Letter No.NIPS-D-391 dated 20.4.1994 to appear 
before Dr. G.A. Murtaza, Professor, for inquiry. 
 
(3) 
Letter No.F.9-6/HSSC/SEC/93/9848 dated 13.3.1993 
for verification of marks sheet of respondent. 
 
(4)  
Letter No.F.7-1/92 dated January 1992 issued to the 
respondent for production of educational documents. 
 
(2) 
In the light of above narration of facts, respondent No.2 was 
not eligible: at all to contest the elections from PP-12 but 
even then he has been declared as a returned candidate. 
Hence he is liable to be disqualified outrightly. 
 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
 
 
 
-  3 -
i. 
That respondent No.2 has not fulfilled the correct and exact 
statement of accounts about the expenses e.g. in the 
gowshwara he has shown the expenses of only petrol and 
load (sic) speaker. Likewise respondent No.2 has concealed 
the expenses incurred on posters, stickers, banners and his 
central office. 
 
For getting voter list from the Election Commission for PP-
12, Rs.14,000/- or 15,000/- are to be paid as official fee but 
respondent No.2 did not pay the said amount. 
 
Respondent No.2 has also not shown the expenses incurred 
on different polling stations, booths, distribution of voter list 
and other expenses of stationary. This act of respondent No.2 
is against the election laws and is in violation of Election 
Rules.” 
 
It is quite clear from the above that the amendments are material and 
independent in nature and by themselves are a substantial challenge 
to the election of the respondent, but the amended election petition 
was neither duly verified by the appellant in terms of Order 6 Rule 15, 
CPC read with Section 55(3) of the Act nor was got attested from the 
Oath Commissioner. Therefore an objection was raised qua non-
verification of election petition by the respondent, who sought its 
summary dismissal per Section 63 supra. This time the learned 
Election Tribunal held that as the amended petition was not duly 
verified, it came within the mischief of the law supra and accordingly 
dismissed the petition vide the impugned judgment. Hence this 
appeal. 
2.  
 
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the 
amended election petition, in fact, was part and parcel of the original 
election petition and was an addition thereto, thus in law it (the amended 
petition) has merged in the original petition; and as the original petition 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
 
 
 
-  4 -
was verified and earlier held by the Tribunal to be so in accordance 
with law, therefore regardless of whether the amended petition was 
verified or not, the defect shall not fall within the purview of Section 
55(3) ibid. It is also submitted, that an amended (election) petition 
means that something is being added to a thing which is already in 
existence and as election petition of the appellant was already in 
existence and contained proper verification, non verification of the 
amended petition shall not attract any penal consequences (of Section 
55(3) and Section 63 ibid). Lastly, it is urged that at best the learned 
Tribunal could strike out the grounds ‘h’ and ‘i’ which were brought by 
way of amendment in the original election petition and the original 
petition should have been tried and decided on its own merits.  
3. 
 
Heard. In election disputes, the petition (the election petition) 
and the reply thereto are the foundational documents, which are of 
utmost importance and significance. And undoubtedly for all intents 
and purposes these are akin to the pleadings of the parties in a purely 
civil litigation, which (pleadings) are structural in nature, whereupon the 
edifice of the case is rested. The election petition lays down the 
foundation of the claim of an election petitioner, whereas the written 
reply thereto of the respondent (returned candidate) is the underpinning of 
his defence. The importance of the pleadings and its legal value and 
significance can be evaluated and gauged from the fact that it is 
primarily on the basis thereupon that the issues are framed; though 
the pleadings by themselves are not the evidence of the case, the 
parties to a litigation have to lead the evidence strictly in line and in 
consonance thereof to prove their respective pleas. In other words, a 
party is bound by the averments made in its pleadings and is also 
precluded from leading evidence except precisely in terms thereof.  A 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
 
 
 
-  5 -
party cannot travel beyond the scope of its pleadings. It may be 
pertinent to mention here, that even if some evidence has been led by 
a party, which is beyond the scope of its pleadings, the Court shall 
exclude and ignore such evidence from consideration. Thus, it is clear 
that if any party to a lis wants to prove or disprove a case and some 
material has to be brought on the record as part of the evidence, which 
(evidence) otherwise is not covered by the pleadings, it shall be the duty 
of such party to first seek amendment of its pleadings (note:- for the support 
of the opinion, see judgments1).  
4.  
 
Attending to the question of whether the amended 
pleading shall  merge into the original pleading or otherwise, we have 
not been able to lay our hands on any case law from our jurisdiction, 
however 
some 
jurisprudence 
has 
been 
developed 
in 
foreign 
jurisdictions, such as in the English case of Warner Vs. Sampson and 
another (1959) 2 WLR 109 wherein the Court of Appeal has 
propounded:-“once pleadings are amended, that which stood before amendment is no 
longer material before the Court”. Per a judgment of Allahbad High Court 
reported as Brij Kishore Vs. Smt. Mushtari Khatoon (AIR 1976 
Allahabad 399) it has been concluded:-“the amended pleading alone should 
be considered and no reference ought to be made to the original pleadings while 
deciding an issue”. Another judgment from the same jurisdiction is B. 
Parbhu Narain Singh and others Vs. B. Jitendra Mohan Singh and 
another (AIR (35) 1948 Oudh 307) in which it has been held:-“Court 
must take the pleadings in the case as they stand and leave out of consideration the 
pleadings as they stood before the amendment”.   
5. 
 
From the ratio of the above case law and from our own 
understanding of law, we are of the considered view that principle of 
                                                
1 Muhammad Akram and another Versus Mst. Farida Bibi and others (2007 SCMR 1719), Aurangzeb through L.Rs and 
others Versus Muhammad Jaffar and another (2007 SCMR 236), Sh. Fateh Muhammad Versus Muhammad Adil and 
others  (PLD 2007 SC 460), Binyameen and 3 others Versus Chaudhry Hakim and another (1996 SCMR 336) 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
 
 
 
-  6 -
merger as put forth by the learned counsel is neither relevant nor shall 
apply in this situation, rather it is the principle of substitution which 
shall be attracted. For the determination and resolution of issues in 
disputes before the Court, it is the amended pleading which shall be 
taken into consideration and not the former pleadings. It is on the 
basis of the amended pleadings that the issues shall be framed; and if 
already so framed, shall be modified to either score off any existing 
issue or to add the issues arising out of the amended pleadings (note:- 
however in the cases where there is any unauthorized addition in the amended 
pleadings for scoring it off or for the purposes of confronting someone within the 
earlier pleadings as a previous statement, the earlier pleadings may have some 
relevance).  The amended petition in this case for all intents and 
purposes shall be a final, independent and separate document (election 
petition) which had to be verified per the mandate of law. It is conceded 
by the learned counsel for the appellant, when confronted with the fact 
that the amended election petition filed by the appellant has not been 
verified in accordance with law, that if the original election petition is 
ignored from consideration, the amended petition will be hit by the 
provisions of Sections 55(3) and 63 of the Act. Obviously on account of 
the above, the impugned decision of the Tribunal is unexceptionable. 
  
As regards the other argument of the learned counsel that 
grounds ‘h’ and ‘i’, which were part of the amended petition, should be 
struck off or ignored from consideration and the Election Petition 
should be  tried per its original contents, suffice it to say that, as has 
been opined above, once the original petition was replaced and 
substituted by the amended petition, the earlier could not be resorted 
to and it is not left to the choice of the appellant to fall back on the 
original petition and have the two grounds deleted for the resolution of 
Civil Appeal No.394 of 2014 
 
 
 
-  7 -
the election dispute agitated by the appellant. Besides, the striking off 
of the two grounds mentioned above was not the case of the appellant 
before the Election Tribunal and such a prayer even does not fall 
within the purview of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
which stipulates the striking off the pleadings in the following terms:- 
“Striking out pleadings.---The court may at any stage of the 
proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter 
in any pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous 
or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair 
trial of the suit.” 
 
It may be pertinent to mention here, that per Section 64 of the Act, 
Code of Civil Procedure is attracted and no case has been made out by 
the appellant in terms of the provisions ibid (for striking off the pleadings). It 
may further be added that even in the present appeal, the plea that 
grounds ‘h’ and ‘i’ to the amended election petition must be scored out 
has not been set out in particular, therefore such plea cannot be 
allowed. In light of the above, no case for interference has been made 
out. Dismissed accordingly. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
 JUDGE 
22nd April, 2015 
Approved For Reporting 
Ghulam Raza/*