IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, CJ. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim. 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman. 
 
Civil Appeal No. 946/2014. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 03.06.2014 
passed by the Election Tribunal, Rawalpindi, 
in E. P. No. 188/2013/RWP/05/2013) 
 
Ch. Muhammad Ayaz. 
 
 
 
 
Appellant(s). 
 
Versus 
 
Asif Mehmood, etc.  
 
 
 
 
Respondent(s). 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC. 
 
For Respondent No. 1: 
 
Dr. Babar Awan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
07.12.2015. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, J: - This appeal is directed against the 
judgment dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Election Tribunal, Rawalpindi 
(hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), in E. P. No. 
188/2013/RWP/05/2013, whereby the said petition has been dismissed by 
holding that the appellant has failed to produce authentic and reliable 
evidence in support of his petition. 
2. 
The relevant facts are that the appellant and respondents contested 
election for the slot of Member Provincial Assembly (MPA) from the 
constituency of PP-9 Rawalpindi-IX during the general elections held on 
11.05.2013. The respondent No. 1, Asif Mehmood, was declared as a 
Returned Candidate who had secured 29797 votes while the appellant was 
the runner up candidate by securing 29524 votes, there being a difference of 
273 votes. The appellant through his election petition averred that 
respondent No. 1 had maneuvered his win through corrupt and illegal 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
2 
 
practices with the assistance of polling staff during the process of election 
who had exhorted and instigated the voters to vote for Pakistan Tehreek-e-
Insaf (PTI) candidate i.e., respondent No. 1. It was further averred that the 
polling staff performed their duties in a partial manner on the premises of 
paradigm shift in the politics of the country. The appellant had stated in his 
petition that a complaint had been moved by one Muhammad Asim Afzal 
Kiani to the Returning Officer (RO) concerned against the Presiding 
Officer (PO) of polling station No. 53, but the same was not adhered to. It 
was also alleged that at polling station No. 78, from where the PO handed 
over a statement of count in Form-XIV to appellant’s polling agent namely 
Talia Kanwal, respondent No. 1 had secured 413 votes whereas Form-XIV 
depicts that he got 295 votes which figure was tampered with after 
comparing the results of the constituency of NA-54. The appellant in this 
regard had immediately moved an application to the RO on the same day 
alongwith Form-XIV as a fax copy and the appellant also moved an 
application on the next day to the DRO, Rawalpindi, which was stated to 
have been forwarded to the RO, but it was not decided till 15.05.2013. In 
this regard the appellant asserted that he had obtained the copy of the order 
dated 15.05.2013, but he found that the said application had already been 
dismissed on 12.05.2013 instead of 15.05.2013. It was also alleged that 
massive irregularities and illegalities had been committed during the 
election process by the PO alongwith polling staff who extended undue 
advantage to respondent No. 1, a PTI candidate. That the RO did not 
count/check the rejected votes, many votes were cast in different polling 
stations where either the voters had died or their votes had already been 
casted especially indicating that such exercise was committed in Askari-14. 
The appellant had further alleged that mal-practices had been committed in 
polling stations No. 1, 2, 4 to 12, 22, 24, 32, 38, 48, 62 & 78 wherein 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
3 
 
results were handed over to the polling agent of the appellant on plain paper 
instead of Form-XIV. It was also alleged that polling papers had not been 
got signed by the POs. The appellant also alleged that respondent No. 1 was 
also disqualified to contest the election having violated Articles 62 & 63 of 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter to be 
referred as “the Constitution”) as he neither showed his assets nor disclosed 
his spouse as serving lady. That respondent No. 1 was also a tax evader. In 
the light of the above, the appellant had prayed that the election of 
respondent No. 1 be declared void and he be declared as duly elected MPA 
from PP-9 Rawalpindi-IX. The petition had duly been contested by 
respondent No. 1 who filed written replies. Thereafter, on framing of issues 
and recording of pro and contra evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the 
election petition of the appellant vide impugned judgment by holding that 
he has failed to produce any authentic and reliable evidence which could 
entail acceptance of the petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant has now 
filed the instant appeal. 
3. 
The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset argued that 
there is a very minor difference of 273 votes between the appellant and 
respondent No. 1 and that had occurred on account of clear interpolation of 
the result of polling station No. 78 wherein on the maneuvering of 
respondent No. 1 the PO had made interpolation on the statement of count 
by cutting the figure of 295 and awarding the respondent No. 1 with 413 
votes, and if those are reversed the result would be in favour of the 
appellant and the said error had not been rectified through any counter 
signature by the PO as such the figure of 413 in favour of respondent No. 1 
stands disputed, hence it could not have been taken into consideration. That 
respondent No. 1 in this regard failed to produce the PO, Mrs. Shaista 
Banu, in order to discharge his burden that the statement of count was 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
4 
 
correctly prepared whereas the appellant in support of his case produced 
Sabir Ayaz (PW-1) and Mst. Shaban Jumshad (PW-10) and their evidence 
had not been rebutted by respondent No. 1. He next vehemently argued that 
it was an established fact that in seven polling stations counting was done 
in the absence of the polling agent of the appellant and in this regard an 
application had been moved for recount, but the same had not been done. 
The main stress of the learned counsel for the appellant was that respondent 
No. 1 stood disqualified under Sections 12 & 14 of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) and Articles 
62 & 63 of the Constitution for concealment of his assets while filing 
nomination papers as was required under an oath but he had failed to give 
complete details of his property i.e., H. No. 39/10-B-III, Usman Street, 
Abadi No. 2, Tench Bhata, Rawalpindi, and in this regard the Tribunal had 
only held that the same being inherited property does not come within the 
circumference of assets. While relying upon the case of Iqbal Zafar Jhagra 
and others vs. Khalilur Rehman and 4 others (2000 SCMR 250), he 
argued that respondent No. 1 while filing his nomination papers was 
required to declare the same and by not declaring the said property he stood 
disqualified under the above referred provisions of laws because his mother 
had passed away on 07.03.2012 and he inherited H. No. 39/10-B-III, 
Usman Street, Abadi No.2, Tench Bhata, Rawalpindi, but the said property 
had not been declared by respondent No.1 and in this regard adverted our 
attention to nomination papers wherein respondent No. 1 under solemn 
affirmation had filed the said papers without declaring the said ancestral 
property as his asset. It was also further argued that there is a verification 
under oath that he has made a correct declaration, but by concealing the 
said property the respondent No. 1 comes within the purview of Articles 62 
& 63 of the Constitution, which the Tribunal has failed to appreciate as 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
5 
 
such the instant appeal deserves acceptance and impugned judgment be set 
aside. 
4. 
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted 
that respondent No. 1 had filed written reply with certain preliminary 
objections that the election petition of the appellant is liable to be dismissed 
under Section 63 of the Act because the requirements of Section 55 of the 
Act have not been fulfilled. The appellant did not verify the contents of the 
petition alongwith schedule and annexures which was clear violation of 
Section 55 of the Act. Even the affidavit was not filed with the titled 
petition and the same fact was admitted by the appellant when he had filed 
an application under Section 62 of the Act seeking amendment in the 
election petition wherein para-2 he admitted that, “at the time of filing of 
election petition by inadvertence, the petitioner has not signed the 
verification, however the counsel for the petitioner has signed the 
certificate underneath the verification. This act of the petitioner was a 
human error as to overlook to do the needful.” It was further stated in the 
application that non-signing of the verification is a mere irregularity. The 
learned counsel further submitted that the said application had been filed 
with a considerable delay as such an application for condonation of delay 
was also filed. Even the petition had not been sworn on solemn affirmation. 
While relying upon the cases of Zia-ur-Rehman vs. Syed Ahmed Hussain 
and others (2014 SCMR 1015), Inayatullah vs. Syed Khursheed Ahmed 
Shah and others (2014 SCMR 1477) and Muhammad Naseem Khan vs. 
Returning Officer, PP-12 and others (2015 SCMR 1698), the learned 
counsel submitted that from day one the petition of the appellant was non 
est. The learned counsel secondly controverted the contention of the 
appellant, that respondent No. 1 had failed to disclose in his list of assets 
the inherited house, by asserting that the same was in the name of his 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
6 
 
mother who died on 07.03.2012 as such at the time of filing of nomination 
papers the same had not been got transferred in his name and it is yet to be 
seen whether the said house devolves on the respondent or otherwise. He 
further submitted that the plea regarding the said property had not been 
pleaded by the appellant in his election petition as such he cannot go 
beyond his pleadings and in this regard he relied upon the case of 
Muhammad Saeed Awan and another vs. District Returning Officer, 
Attock and others (2006 SCMR 1495). While adverting to the allegation of 
the appellant regarding interpolation in the statement of count of polling 
station No. 78, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the 
same was signed by the PO and in this regard the application of the 
appellant was entrusted to the RO who justified the cutting on statement of 
count and resultantly the said application was dismissed vide order dated 
12.05.2013 which had attained finality. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for 
the appellant adverted our attention to the affidavit of the appellant filed 
before the Tribunal and submitted that the same was signed by the 
appellant. 
5. 
We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties 
and have perused the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as 
the material placed on record. 
6. 
Before proceeding with the appeal in hand it would be appropriate 
and proper to discuss the thrust of the arguments of the respondent's learned 
counsel with regard to maintainability of the election petition on account of 
non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 55(3) of 
the Act as well as Order VI Rule 15(2) CPC as to the verification of the 
election petition alongwith schedule and annexures. He has adverted our 
attention to the fact that upon filing of the election petition certain 
preliminary objections had been raised by the respondents that the appellant 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
7 
 
while filing his election petition had not verified the contents of the petition 
alongwith schedule and annexures which was clear violation of Section 
55(3) of the Act and on taking of such objection, an application had been 
filed by the appellant under Section 62(3) of the Act seeking amendment in 
the election petition wherein in para-2 it has been admitted that at the time 
of filing of election petition by inadvertence, the petitioner has not signed 
the verification, however, the counsel for the petitioner has signed the 
certificate underneath the verification. This act of the petitioner was a 
human error as to overlook to do the needful. It has been further asserted 
that the said application had been filed after considerable delay and as such 
an application for condonation of delay had also been filed. In the light of 
the above it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 55(3) of the Act 
which reads as under:- 
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.  
 
Since the verification as per the above provisions is to be made according 
to the provisions of Order VI Rule 15 CPC, the same is also reproduced for 
ready reference:- 
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.  
 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
8 
 
From the perusal of the election petition it is apparent that the verification 
at the time of its filing had not been made by the appellant and neither the 
annexures alongwith schedule had been signed which had been sought to be 
rectified through amended application subsequently submitted by the 
appellant after a considerable delay and also after passing of the period of 
limitation. It has been observed that the above quoted provisions 
specifically state that verification is to be made at the time of filing of the 
election petition and any default in this regard would be considered to be a 
significant omission and fatal. Admittedly the appellant had sought 
amendment in the election petition after the period of limitation as such the 
petition, in the light of the above provisions, could not have been 
considered and allowed and warranted dismissal being not maintainable on 
this very score.  Keeping in view the above provisions verification of the 
election petition was a mandatory requirement and that too in accordance 
with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15(2) of CPC 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. It is an 
admitted position that the appellant had initially not verified the election 
petition filed by him which is apparent as he subsequently filed application 
seeking amendment to do so and that also with an application for 
condonation of delay. In the light of the above whether the election petition 
was maintainable and the deficiency could have been allowed to be 
rectified and that also after the passing of the period of limitation and in 
circumstances non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 
55(3) of the Act is fatal to the maintainability of the election petition. We 
are benefited here from the dictums laid down by this Court in chain of 
judgments. In the case of Malik Umar Aslam Vs. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 
SC 362) it has been held that non-verification of pleadings on oath or 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
9 
 
solemn affirmation before the person authorized to administer oath, such 
pleadings would be deemed not to be duly verified on oath, relevant part 
whereof is reproduced as under:- 
"5. 
We have heard parties' counsel at length and have also taken 
into consideration the material so made available on record. A perusal of 
the scheme of the Act, 1976 relating to filing of Election Petition under 
Chapter VII reveals that the lawgivers, to ensure expeditious decision of 
election disputes, has authorized the Election Tribunal to regularize the 
proceedings itself, instead of following the technicalities of C.P.C. 
except application of some provisions specifically made applicable for 
limited purposes. Under section 55(3) of the Act, 1976, it has been made 
obligatory upon the person, who has challenged the Elections, to verify 
the same in the manner prescribed for verification of plaint by C.P.C. 
thus by reference, the provisions of Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C. have been 
made applicable. As per its provision, every pleading is required to be 
verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one 
of the parties to pleadings or by some other person to the satisfaction of 
the Court acquainted with the facts of the case. It may not be out of 
context to note that the verification of the pleadings on oath was 
introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) read with 
section 6 of the Oath Act, 1873, by adding the words "on oath or solemn 
affirmation" after the word verified in Rule 15(i) of Order VI, C.P.C. It 
is also pertinent to note that after the said importance of the same 
amendment in presence of verified pleadings on oath, the Court has 
been empowered to proceed case ex parte against the opponents and 
pass a decree, under Order IX, Rule 6(1), C.P.C. without calling for an 
affidavit in ex parte proof. We believe that there is no point to address 
ourselves on this question namely if verification on oath has not been 
made before the person authorized to administer the oath, the same 
would not be considered to be valid verification because for the purpose 
of taking oath one has to bind down himself to speak the truth otherwise 
he or she would be liable for the curse of Almighty Allah if the truth is 
not spoken. Under section 6 of the Oath  Act, 1873, the procedure has 
been prescribed for taking the oath duly attested by an authorized 
person. Admittedly in instant case, verification has not made on oath 
before an authorized person, therefore, the appellant, on realizing the 
major defect in the Election Petition, submitted an application seeking 
amendment in the petition, to the extent of verifying it on oath, 
accordingly." 
In the case of Iqbal Zafar Jhagra Vs. Khalil-ur-Rehman (2000 SCMR 250) 
it has been held as under:- 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
10 
 
"Subsection (3) of section 36 (ibid) clearly requires that every petition 
and every Schedule or Annexures shall be signed by the petitioner and 
verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for 
verification of pleadings. The verification of pleadings has been 
provided under  Order VI, Rule 15, CPC which when read with section 
29, CPC 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 Syed 
Iftikhar Hussain Gilllani, 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 said that the requirement of section 36 
of the Act, 1976 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 with the provisions of section 
36 of the Act, 1976 and are of the view that these reasons do not suffer 
from any legal infirmity." 
Further in the case of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Vs. Rana Tariq Javed and 
others (2007 SCMR 34), this Court has held as under:- 
"…….. The Election Tribunal, was thus, justified in holding that no 
affidavit was annexed to the election petition which admittedly was not 
verified in accordance with law. As such refusal of the Election Tribunal 
to place reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in the case of 
Bashir Ahmed Bhanbhan and another v. Shaukat Ali Rajpur and others 
PLD 2004 SC 570 and relying on the pronouncement made by this 
Court in the cases of Engineer Zafar Iqbal Jhagra and others v. Khalil-
ur-Rehman and others 2000 SMCR 250 and Sardar Zada Zafar Abbas 
and others v. Syed Hasan Murtaza and others PLD 2005 SC 600 (supra) 
that an election petition not having been filed in compliance with the 
provisions of section 55(3) of the Act, not accompanied by an affidavit 
would be liable to be dismissed under section 63 of the Act as the 
requirement of both the sections were held by this Court as mandatory." 
In the case of Sumaira Malik (supra), following observations have been 
made:-  
"…So far as grant of amendment in the petition or verification clause is 
concerned, it depends upon the nature of the amendment sought in the 
pleadings, on a case to case basis. In the case in hand, the appellant 
knowing well the mandatory provisions of section 55(3) of the Act, 
1976, did not apply for amendment within the prescribed period of 
limitation for filing Election Petition.  Undoubtedly, if during period of 
limitation for filing of petition such an amendment is sought, the Court 
may consider the request according to the settled principle relating to 
amendment in the pleadings but once limitation period has already 
expired, then it is the duty of the Court to examine whether a right, 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
11 
 
which has been created on account of bar of limitation in favour of the 
opposite side can be snatched by allowing amendment in pleadings, 
enabling the plaintiff (petitioner) to put up a better/perfect case against 
the defendant (respondent). In this behalf the consistent practice of the 
Courts is that amendment in such matters, where limitation creates a 
hurdle, is not to be allowed on condoning the delay, particularly where 
no request has been made to enlarge the period of limitation. For the 
above proposition we are fortified by the judgments in the cases of 
Bhagwanji vs Alembic Chemical Works (AIR 1948 PC 100) and Saeed 
Sehgal vs Khurshid Hassan (PLD 1964 SC 598)." 
Further in a well reasoned judgment of Hina Manzoor Vs. Malik Ibrar 
Ahmed and others  (PLD 2015 SC 396) this Court has met with the said 
proposition as under:- 
"6. 
It is, indeed true that in suitable cases and where the 
amendment sought is necessary for the purposes of determining the real 
issue, the bar of limitation may be overlooked, however, the 
amendment, rather the making up of lacuna, sought to be allowed cannot 
be considered to be an amendment necessary for the adjudication of the 
controversy/allegation pertaining to rigging and corrupt practices in the 
election process, as were involved in the present case. Furthermore, 
since the petition suffered with the inherent defect of non-compliance of 
section 55(3) of the ROPA, consequently resulting in its summary 
dismissal as prescribed by section 63 of the ROPA, the petitioner cannot 
be allowed to circumvent the purpose of law in the manner sought by 
him……" 
Further in the case of Zia ur Rehman Vs. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others 
(2014 SCMR 1015) this Court has in categorical terms held as under:- 
" In the instant case, the application for amendment dated 14th October, 
2013 was apparently filed on 23rd October, 2013 well beyond the period 
of limitation i.e. 45 days for filing of an election petition, as provided by 
section 52 subsection (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, 
hence, could not have been allowed by the Election Tribunal through the 
impugned judgment." 
By taking benefit of the above guidelines, it has been examined that the 
appellant while filing his election petition had not complied with the 
mandatory requirements enunciated in Section 55(3) of the Act which are 
mandatory in nature and the same cannot be controverted in the presence of 
application submitted by the appellant under Section 62(3) of the Act 
C. A. No. 946/2014. 
 
12 
 
seeking to rectify the said lacuna as the same had also been filed after the 
period of limitation propounded in the Act could not have been allowed by 
way of amendment to cure the defect of verification after the expiry of 
period of limitation and according to the dictums mentioned above, it has 
been consistent view of this Court that such defect in the election petition 
could never have been allowed in the presence of the provisions enunciated 
in Section 55(3) of the Act, therefore, in the light of the above provisions, 
the election petition of the appellant merited dismissal under Section 63 of 
the Act. The appellant was bound according to the mandatory provisions 
mentioned above to verify his election petition and the same could not be 
cured after expiry of the limitation period. Admittedly his election petition 
had been filed not fulfilling the requirements of the said provisions as 
regard to the verification of the petition which merited outright rejection of 
the same by the Election Tribunal and when the same stands admitted by 
the appellant by seeking amendment to do so which according to him has 
been inadvertently left out on account of human error.  
7. 
In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal merits dismissal, 
the same is therefore, dismissed.  
 
Chief Justice. 
 
 
 
Judge. 
 
 
 
Judge. 
ISLAMABAD. 
07.12.2015. 
(Farrukh) 
Not Approved for Reporting. 
