IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2003 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2.6.2003 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar 
in Election Petition No. 29 of 2002) 
 
Atique Rehman  
 
 
… 
 
… 
 
Appellant  
 
Versus 
 
Haji Khan Afzal, etc  
 
… 
 
… 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
 
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
For the Respondents: 
 
Mr. Abdul Aziz Kundi, AOR 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
2.10.2006 
 
ORDER 
 
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ: Instant appeal has 
been filed against the judgment dated 2nd June 2003 passed by the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar in Election Petition No. 29 of 2002.  
 
Precisely stating facts of the case are that appellant submitted 
nomination papers on 23rd August, 2002 to contest the Election of the Office 
of MPA from PF 42, Hangu-I. The Returning Officer after having examined 
his documents vide detailed order dated 2nd September 2002 concluded that he 
was qualified to contest the election and thus in the contest, the appellant 
secured more votes to that of his opponent and as such was declared 
successful 
candidate. 
The 
respondent 
filed 
an 
Election 
Petition                       
against the appellant, which was allowed by the election Tribunal constituted 
CA 970/2003 
2
under Representation of People Act, 1976 and presided over by a learned 
Judge of the Peshawar High Court, vide judgment dated 2nd June 2003. The 
appellant has thus filed the instant appeal under Section 67(3) of the ibid Act 
[hereinafter referred to as the Act].  
 
Learned counsel for appellant contended that no such ground in respect 
of the age of appellant less than 25 years on the date of filing the nomination 
papers, was taken in the election petition or at any subsequent stage by any of 
the contesting candidate, rather the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal himself 
having posed the question regarding the age of the appellant on the date of 
filing of the nomination papers, held that he being less that 25 years of age 
was not qualified to contest the election. Learned counsel submitted that it was 
brought to the notice of Tribunal that much before the filing of nomination 
papers, a civil suit was filed by the appellant for correction of his date of birth 
which was subsequently decreed in his favour and according to the verdict 
given by the Civil Court, he was above 25 years of age on the date of filing the 
nomination papers and the decree having been not challenged, attained 
finality, which was still holding field to be given effect for all intents and 
purposes.  
 
The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted 
that the decree in question was passed on the basis of medical certificate 
wherein the approximate age of the appellant was given which cannot be 
considered as conclusive evidence of his age and further the same having been 
obtained subsequent to the filing of nomination papers, may not be relevant to 
determine the correct age of the appellant on the target date, therefore, the 
High Court has rightly held that on the day of filing of the nomination papers, 
the appellant was not qualified to contest the election.  
CA 970/2003 
3
 
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and having 
carefully perused the record with their assistance, we in the light of the 
provisions of Section 99 of the Act, 1976 have found that a candidate 
intending to contest election for the seat of member provincial Assembly must 
fulfill the condition contained therein including attaining the age of 25 years 
on the date of filing the nomination paper and should also be enrolled as voter 
in the constituency from which he is contesting the Election. 
 
The appellant having fulfilled the above essential conditions contested 
the Election as a validly nominated candidate therefore, it would hardly make 
any difference that decree was passed subsequent to 23rd August 2002 which 
was the last date for filing the nomination papers. It is evident from the 
contents of the decree that appellant has attained the age of 25 years much 
before the target date and the same having been not assailed in the appropriate 
proceedings was still holding the field, so much so the application under 
Section 12 (2) CPC filed by the respondents for setting aside the decree was 
also dismissed. The validity of the decree passed by the civil court neither 
could be challenged before the Election Tribunal established under 
Representation of People Act, 1976 nor the same could be ignored to be given 
legal effect and thus we are of the considered opinion that so long the decree 
of the Civil Court determining the age of appellant above 25 years on the date 
of filing of nomination papers was intact, the objection that he was less than 
25 years of age on the date of nomination papers could not be raised to 
contend that he was suffering from disqualification to contest the election.  
The contention regarding the other conditions relating to the eligibility of 
appellant to contest the election is also without any substance. The appellant 
was enrolled as voter in the constituency from which he was contesting the   
CA 970/2003 
4
election and he having been not found to have been suffering from any 
disqualification to contest the election was declared a validly nominated 
candidate. It may be noted that neither any appeal was filed against the 
acceptance of nomination paper of the appellant nor the order passed in the 
application under Section 12 (2) CPC challenging the decree was further 
assailed and thus the Tribunal being not competent to sit over the judgment of 
civil court would have no jurisdiction, to go beyond the decree and pass a 
contrary order in respect of age of appellant.  
 
In the light of forgoing reasons the appeal is allowed, impugned 
judgment is set aside and Election Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed 
with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).  
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
02.10.2006 
MS/* 
 
Not Approved For Reporting 
 
 
