Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN SWATI versus SHUJAH SALAM KHAN

Sections 52, 55 (3), 63 and 83 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VI, R 15 Termination of Request for Request for Election Request Although signed by the petitioner and one of his attorneys, Not processed. Required validation in terms of R 15 of O VI, the person signing the certification did not mention the place where the applicant was signing, including a summary of his relevant statements at the time of the application registration. The list was not listed. Filed with the petition, they were also not endorsed as represented under section 55 (3) of the Public Act, 1976, applied to the Election Commission / Member Election Commission as the respondent. Not to do so even though all the foundations have been taken into account. In the petition for direct delimitation by the Election Commission Petition, as a whole, there is no reason for action against the respondents, including its provisions, as listed in section 55 of the Repression. The petition for the People's Act, 1976, did not comply with the grounds, did not disclose, nor did it show any unlawful acts against any of the respondents, including any corrupt or illegal acts or unexpected candidates. Had indicated that the election was a result. Representation has been materially affected by the failure of any person to comply with the terms or conditions of the Public Act, 1976, which was insufficient to guarantee that the inevitable election was invalidated in circumstances where certain conditions were met. Is non-compliant. According to the law, many penal penalties were obtained, he added best advocate from Malakwal lawyer