Find a Lawyer

---S. 55--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VI, R. 15--Election petition--Signing and verification of--Requirements--Such signing and verification, held, would be done exactly in manner laid down in O.VI, R.15, Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Verification of petition would have to be at the foot of pleadings pointing out with reference to numbered paragraph thereof as to what was verified by party of own knowledge and what upon information received and believed to be true--Such pleading has to be signed and, dated indicating place where same was being done.

Mst. Khair-un-Nisa and 6 others v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque and 2.others P L D 1972 S C 25; Ram Labhaya Mal and another v. Firm Chanchal Singh-Jaswant Singh A I R 1932 Lah. 28 and The Commerce Bank Ltd., Karachi v. Habib Bakhsh and another P L D 1978 Quetta 45 ref.

---S. 63- Non-verification of petition and annexures--Effect Election Tribunal, held, would have no option to allow amendments rectifying omission of n n-verification -Non verification of petition and annexures would result in dismissal of such petition.

Rajendra Singh v. Mst. Usha Ran and others 1985 PSC 1208 and Ali Ahmed Khan, v. Muhammad Qasim Khan and others P L D 1985 Jour. 277 ref.

---S. 55(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VI, R. 15 Verification of pleadings--Mode of--Swearing separate affidavit and verification thereof, held, would not be proper mode of verification in terms of provisions of 0. VI. R. 15, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Verification hap to be at the foot of petition--Verification of contents of affidavit although reproduction of the petition would not suffice to meet requirement of law--Failing to sign and verify appendices would also render petition liable for dismissal.

This election petition relating to P.P. No. 115, Kasur, was assailed on a preliminary objection that it failed to comply with the provisions of section 55 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976, inasmuch as neither itself nor its appendices were signed and verified by the petitioner. Non-compliance with this requirement was claimed to result in dismissal of the petition under section 63 of the Act leaving no option whatsoever to the Tribunal in this behalf.

2. In reply, reliance was placed upon an affidavit separately signed and verified by the petitioner affirming the correctness of the entire election petition.

3. The requirement of signing and verifying the petition as also the annexures by the petitioner himself is provided in subsection (3) of section 55 of the Act. It has to be done exactly "in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleadings". This manner has been laid down in Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. and the verification has to be in accordance therewith "at the foot" of the pleading pointing out with reference to the numbered paragraphs thereof as what is verified by the party of his own knowledge and what upon information received and believed by him to be true. Further, it has to be signed and dated indicating the place where it was so being done.

4. Though the election petition was signed, yet unluckily it was not verified as per requirements of Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. Instead, a separate affidavit on a stamped paper (pages 9-13 of the file) was sworn verifying its own contents to be true according to the petitioner's knowledge and belief. These contents were claimed in a way reproduction of those of the main petition and hence it was said to be enough compliance of the provisions of section 55 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976, and Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C. Sh. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate for the petitioner, relying upon Mst. Khair-un-Nisa and 6 others v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque and 2 others P L D 1972 SC 25 strenuously contented that the whole purpose of verification was to discourage falsehood and that this object was quite adequately achieved by swearing the affidavit containing the same allegations as were made in the petition itself. He added that its absence was merely an irregularity not much vital to the merits of the case and that the omission could be supplied by allowing an amendment. He placed reliance in this behalf on Ram Labhaya Mal and another v. Firm Chanchal Singh-Jaswant Singh A I R 1932 Lah. 28 and The Commerce Bank Ltd., Karachi v. Habib Bakhsh and another P L D 1978 Quetta 45.

5. I do not think in the context of election laws, verification of the petition or its annexures was merely a formality as could be supplied later by amendment. Section 63 of the Act leaves no option to the Tribunal to allow any such amendment as its absence shall result in dismissal of the petition. There can be no two opinions about it. The authorities referred to in this behalf more or less relate to civil cases and not to the election petitions which are invariably dismissed even on technical grounds. In Rajendra Singh v. Mst. Usha Rani and others 1985 P S C 1208 such a petition was dismissed for having filed and supplied incorrect copies of the petition, ate, to the opposite party, Likewise, in Ali Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Qasim Khan and others PLDI 1985 Jour. 277 non-impleader of a party was held fatal.

6. Swearing a separate affidavit and also its verification is evidently not contemplated by the "manner" prescribed for verifying pleadings. It has to be "at the foot" of the petition itself which admittedly in this case is missing. The verification of the contents of the affidavit although reproduction of the petition will not suffice to meet the requirement of Order VI, rule 15, C.P.C., which insists for the particular manner. I regret I am unable to accept the counsel's contention.

7. Worse is the case for the petitioner in relation to his having failed to sign and verify the appendices. This was yet another' pre-emptory requirement of subsection (3) of section 55. None of the- documents appended to the petition has been so signed or verified by the petitioner. No explanation was offered in regard to this omission. The so-called affidavit does not relate to them at all obviously making it a case of sheer non-compliance of an imperative provision mentioned above and its consequence evidently was nothing but dismissal of the petition.

8. The preliminary objection prevails and accordingly the .petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.