Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAHIM KHOSO versus MIR HAZAR KHAN BIJRANI

Sections 53, (, (63), ?, & 63 and Election 64) Amendment to the Election Petition The applicant / failed candidate had questioned the selection in the respective constituency in his election petition and the selection of the returning candidate. Prayer was challenged back by the candidate and requested his dismissal on the basis that it was filed after the expiry of 45 days, by law. The period specified for filing and was stated that the representation of the petition is not required in accordance with section 55 (3). An application was filed to allow the amendment of the election petition, instead of verifying the applicant, the applicant filed an affidavit, which required his clause 55 (1). (B) Representation of the public The Act, 1976 was that every election request and schedule or supplementary amendment request must be signed and ratified by Lettdown (EF) in Civil / Code of Conduct 1908, filing an affidavit by itself. Requests under R 15 cannot be verified, with CPC scope electoral tribunal. Representation was restricted under section 62 (3) of the Representation People Act 1976, which could not be extended, thereby rendering the petition eligible for a hearing which was completely ineligible or otherwise proposed amendment request. And to avoid it. Inadequate and ineligible for Section 63 (a) of the Public Representation Act, 1976, the legal consequences were that if the requirement of section 55 (3) of the Act was not complied with the required requirements advocate from Talamba lawyer