IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.319 OF 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 5.12.2013 of the 
Election Tribunal, Rawalpindi passed in 
E.P.No.257/2013/RWP/12/2013) 
 
 
Hina Manzoor 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Malik Ibrar Ahmed, etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. M. Rafique Rajwana, ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
28.04.2015 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Appellant and respondent No.1 
contested the elections for NA-54, Rawalpindi. The appellant being the 
runner up filed an election petition against the said respondent (returned 
candidate) before the Election Tribunal on the ground that the 
verification on the election petition has not been attested by the Oath 
Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our 
attention to page 27 of the paper-book that the election petition is not 
attested by the Oath Commissioner, however, his argument is that this 
is not the mandate of the provisions of Section 139 of the CPC, rather 
the requirement of attestation is only confined to the affidavit as per 
Order 19 of the CPC. In addition to the above, it is submitted that an 
amended election petition was filed on 8.10.2013 which was duly 
attested per the law, but the learned Tribunal has discarded this on 
C.A.319 of 2014 
-: 2 :- 
the ground that the attestation through the amended petition is 
beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the election 
petition and this according to the learned counsel is not a valid reason 
for summary rejection of the election petition. 
2. 
 
Heard. As far as the first argument is concerned, there are 
plethora of judgments starting with Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and 
others Vs. Khalil-ur-Rehman and 4 others (2000 SCMR 250), 
Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others Vs. Syed Hassan Murtaza and 
others (PLD 2005 SC 600), Malik Umar Aslam Vs. Sumaira Malik 
and others (PLD 2007 SC 362), Maulvi Abdul Qadir and others Vs. 
Maulvi Abdul Wassy and others (2010 SCMR 1877) and Zia-ur-
Rehman Vs. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1015) 
which require that an election petition has to be attested by the Oath 
Commissioner and this is mandatory, otherwise it should be dismissed 
as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Representation of People Act, 
1976 read with Section 55(3). We are not inclined to agree with the 
learned counsel that the law laid down in the above-noted judgments 
are/is incorrect exposition or enunciation and, therefore, such 
judgments must be revisited, rather to the contrary appropriate valid 
and apt reasons have been given by this Court in the aforesaid cases 
to reach to the conclusion that the verification requires attestation by 
the Oath Commissioner is imperative and mandatory in law. As 
regards the question that the amended petition was duly attested and, 
therefore, it is this petition which should have been taken into 
consideration and account, suffice it to say that per the law laid down 
in Malik Umar Aslam Vs. Sumaira Malik and others (PLD 2007 SC 
362), the amended election petition even if was attested by the Oath 
Commissioner but by the time, the time for the petition having lapsed 
C.A.319 of 2014 
-: 3 :- 
could not be considered to be a valid institution for the purposes of 
condoning the incurable defect of non-attestation of the election 
petition. Both the arguments have no merit, therefore, this appeal is 
dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
JUDGE 
28th April, 2015 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
