IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.1 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 31.12.2019 
passed 
by 
the 
Election 
Tribunal 
Balochistan, Quetta in Election Petition No. 
No.36/2018) 
 
 
 
Sardar Abdul Rehman 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
Abdul Kareem Kehtran & others  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr.ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
06.10.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- After a nail biting 
contest, held on 25th of July, 2018 in PB-08 Barkhan, Balochistan, the 
appellant returned by a narrow margin of 65 votes; dissatisfied with 
the outcome, Abdul Karim Kethran, one of the contestants, respondent 
herein, approached the Returning Officer for recount of invalid ballot 
papers, allegedly liable to be excluded from consideration, however, 
credited to the appellant, materially altering the result of the election to 
his detriment; in his initial quest for a recount, he remained 
unsuccessful throughout whereafter he questioned the validity of 
election before the learned Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta, 
through an election petition filed by his attorney Sanaullah, decided in 
his favour vide impugned judgment dated 31.12.2019, in the following 
terms:- 
“……..the Election Petition filed by the petitioner 
Abdul 
Kareem 
Khetran 
is 
accepted. 
The 
Civil Appeal No.1 of 2020  
2
Notification No.F.2(42)/2018-Cord.- dated 7th 
August 2018, issued by the Election Commission 
of Pakistan (respondent No.16), whereby the 
respondent 
No.1 
(Sardar 
Abdul 
Rehman 
Khetran) was declared as returned candidate 
from PB-8-Barkhan, is set aside to his extent. 
The Election Commission of Pakistan is directed 
to de-notify the returned candidate namely 
Sardar Abdul Rehman Khetran (respondent 
No.1). The seat of returned candidate having 
become vacant shall be filled through re-polling 
in the entire constituency.” 
 
The respondent challenged the election on a variety of grounds ranging 
from massive rigging at various polling stations to inclusion of invalid 
votes in appellant’s count with a particular emphasis on 312 postal 
ballots. The appellant contested the petition alleging accusations as 
non-specific and vague as well as hit by non-compliance of various 
mandatory provisions of the Elections Act, 2017 “the Act”. On 
divergent positions, both sides led evidence before the Tribunal, on the 
basis whereof, the learned Tribunal, on 11.07.2019, through an 
interlocutory order directed the Returning Officer to arrange verification 
of 3052 votes from National Database & Registration Authority, 
however, upon a report submitted by the Returning Officer that since 
the seals on the bags containing the impugned ballot papers had 
already been breached, the desired verification could not be carried out 
with any degree of certainty/authenticity, a circumstance that appears 
to have weighed with the learned Tribunal to direct re-poll in the entire 
constituency.  
2. 
 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Sr.ASC, after 
elaborating his entire case, nonetheless, has finally confined himself to 
the verification of the postal ballots for the determination of their 
validity, a request contrarily contested by the learned counsel for the 
appellant, primarily on the ground that the suggested exercise cannot 
be allowed to be undertaken without contravening the mandatory 
statutory provisions that render the election petition hopelessly non-
maintainable for reasons more than one; according to him, the 
respondent had banked upon his attorney throughout and came 
forward with stereotype allegations, vague as well as non-specific, and 
also failed to discharge the onus so as to demonstrate that the alleged 
rigging and non-compliance with the Rules was done on his behalf and 
that it materially effected the outcome of the poll, otherwise tilting in his 
favour. The learned counsel has referred to the flawed verification of the 
election petition as well as annexures thereof to argue that the omission 
unredeemingly closed the chapter. 
Civil Appeal No.1 of 2020  
3
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Adverting to the fundamental issue of maintainability of the 
election petition, it would be pertinent to mention that the appellant 
had taken the plea of non-maintainability in his written statement, in 
consequence whereof, an additional issue in the following term was 
framed by the Tribunal: 
 
“Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is  
maintainable in view of legal objections ‘B’ ‘C’, ‘E’ & 
‘F’ raised in the election petition?” 
 
The learned Tribunal, however, considering the case law cited at the 
bar as factually distinguishable, ignored the objections with regard to 
the patent flaws in verification of the petition as well as annexures and 
mode of presentation thereof, holding the challenge as intra vires. We 
curiously examined the question of verification to explore any sign of 
life in the lis and for the purpose went through various provisions of the 
Act that heavily borrows mechanism for the trial of an election petition 
provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1998) “the 
Code” for disposal of a civil suit. Section 148 of the Act specifically 
provides as under: 
“Procedure before Election Tribunal for trial 
of petitions.- (1) Subject to this Act and Rules, 
the trial of an election petition, shall be as nearly 
as possible, in accordance with the procedure 
applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
(Act V of 1908) to the trial of suits and the Qanun-
e-Shahdat Order, 1984 (President’s Order. No.X of 
1984).” 
  
We have noticed that the respondent assigned the responsibility for 
institution as well as prosecution of the election petition to his 
confidant Sanaullah, designated as attorney; he is the person who 
appears to have not only presented the election petition but also 
verified contents as well as annexures thereof as required under section 
144 (4) of the Act.  While Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the Code 
generously permit the parties to sign pleadings or verification either 
personally or through their designated attorneys, section 144 (4) ibid 
mandatorily restricts the petitioner to personally undertake the 
exercise, violation whereof, would inevitably result into summary 
rejection of the petition as is evident from the plain language of 
subsection 1 of section 148 of the Act ibid. It was incumbent upon the 
petitioner to follow the procedure expressly provided by the Act itself; 
admittedly not followed by him. The same anomaly is recurring in all 
the annexures without exception. It was at the fag-end of the 
Civil Appeal No.1 of 2020  
4
proceedings that the respondent personally appeared to face cross-
examination on detailed affidavit (Ex.P/11), again signed and submitted 
by the said attorney; his entry in the witness box was objected to, 
however, the decision thereof was deferred on the final adjudication, an 
omission conspicuous on the record. Statement of Abdul Kareem Khan, 
respondent, is the mainstay of his challenge to the election result; 
though in the opening part of the detailed affidavit, there is a solemn 
affirmation on oath, purportedly by the respondent in support of the 
contents thereof, nonetheless, at the bottom of the affidavit, it appears 
to have been sworn by Sanaullah attorney before the Oath 
Commissioner. As mentioned above, the provisions of Qanun-e-
Shahdat Order, 1984 are also applicable before the Election Tribunal; 
Article 133 whereof provides order of examinations, reproduced for 
ready reference: 
“Order of examinations.- (1) Witnesses shall be 
first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so 
desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him 
so desires) re-examined. 
(2) 
The examination and cross-examination must 
relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination 
need not be confined to the facts to which the 
witness testified on his examination-in-chief. 
(3) 
The re-examination shall be directed to the 
explanation 
of 
matters 
referred 
to 
in 
cross-
examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of 
the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse 
party may further cross-examine that matter.” 
   
Record does not suggest appearance of Sanaullah attorney before the 
Tribunal, however, it is manifestly clear that for detailed affidavit 
EX.P/11, the oath was never administered upon the respondent as is 
evident from the description of deponent thereof being no other than 
Sanaullah. Examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination 
are in inseparable parts of a witness’s deposition and it was not open 
for the respondent, though owned by him, nonetheless, to adopt 
contents of an affidavit sworn by a different deponent; the anomaly 
cannot be countenanced without destroying the entire scheme of law 
regarding examination of a witness. It may be added that verifications 
san compliance with the procedure provided in the High Court Rules & 
Orders, Volume IV, Chapter XII wherein form of oath and affirmation 
thereof, to be administered to the witnesses, are aptly illustrated, non 
compliance whereof has been held as fatal to an election petition, as is 
Civil Appeal No.1 of 2020  
5
evident by the law declared by this Court in the cases reported as 
“Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan Vs. Returning Officer PP-12 & others 
(2015 SCMR 1698), Hina Manzoor Vs. Malik Ibrar Ahmed & others   
(PLD 2015 Supreme Court 396) Zia-ur-Rehman Vs. Syed Ahmad Hussain 
& others (2014 SCMR 1015) Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra & others Vs. Khalil-
ur-Rehman & 4 others (2000 SCMR 250) and Lt. Col. (Retired) Ghazanfar 
Abbas 
Shah 
Vs. 
Mehr 
Khalid 
Mehmood 
Sargana 
& 
others  
(2015 PSC 1214).  
5. 
 
In view of the above insurmountable juridical hurdles, we 
do not find ourselves disposed to grant an otherwise innocuous request 
to examine the validity of 312 postal ballots, against the backdrop of a 
narrow margin of victory, notwithstanding. Examination of other 
issues, resting upon allegations, otherwise too broad to be specifically 
qualified through tangible evidence, fades into insignificance on 
account of our findings on the question of maintainability of the 
election petition. Appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment is set 
aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    
 
 
  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
6th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
